Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/10/1993 01:00 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 10, 1993
1:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Rep. Brian Porter, Chairman
Rep. Jeannette James, Vice-Chair
Rep. Pete Kott
Rep. Joe Green
Rep. Gail Phillips
Rep. Cliff Davidson
Rep. Jim Nordlund
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HJR 3: Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the
State of Alaska limiting tenure in the
legislature.
HEARD AND PLACED IN A SUBCOMMITTEE
HB 62: "An Act prohibiting employers from discriminating
against individuals who use legal products in a
legal manner outside of work."
CS PASSED OUT WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION
HB 147: "An Act relating to the disclosure of information
by an employer about the job performance of an
employee or former employee."
HEARD AND HELD IN COMMITTEE FOR FURTHER
CONSIDERATION
HB 152: "An Act relating to magistrate jurisdiction."
NOT HEARD; RESCHEDULED TO MARCH 17, 1993
HB 167: "An Act relating to air quality control and the
prevention, abatement, and control of air
pollution; relating to civil and criminal
penalties, damages, and other remedies for air
quality control violations; clarifying the
definition of 'hazardous substance' to include
releases and threatened releases to the
atmosphere; amending the lien provisions relating
to the oil and hazardous substance release
response fund; relating to inspection and
enforcement powers of the Department of
Environmental Conservation; and providing for an
effective date."
NOT HEARD
WITNESS REGISTER
REP. TERRY MARTIN
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 411
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Phone: 465-3783
Position Statement: Supported HJR 3
RESA JERREL
National Federation of Independent Businesses
9159 Skywood
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: 789-4278
Position Statement: Supported HJR 3
HEATH HILYARD
College Republicans
Wood Center
University of Alaska Fairbanks
Fairbanks, Alaska 99775
Phone: 457-2236
Position Statement: Opposed HJR 3
GAYLE HORETSKI
Committee Counsel
Alaska State Legislature
House Judiciary Committee
Capitol Building, Room 120
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Phone: 465-6841
Position Statement: Discussed HB 62 and HB 147
DOUG RICKEY
Legislative Aide
Rep. Ben Grussendorf
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 415
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Phone: 465-3824
Position Statement: Supported HB 62
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HJR 3
SHORT TITLE: LIMITING TERMS OF LEGISLATORS
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MARTIN,Kott
TITLE: Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State
of Alaska limiting tenure in the legislature.
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/04/93 22 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/11/93 22 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/11/93 22 (H) STATE AFFAIRS,JUDICIARY,FINANCE
01/26/93 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
01/26/93 (H) MINUTE(STA)
01/26/93 (H) MINUTE(STA)
01/26/93 (H) MINUTE(STA)
01/26/93 (H) MINUTE(STA)
01/30/93 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
01/30/93 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/06/93 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/09/93 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/09/93 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/11/93 317 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) NEW TITLE
5DP 2NR
02/11/93 318 (H) DP: VEZEY, OLBERG, G.DAVIS,
SANDERS,KOTT
02/11/93 318 (H) NR: ULMER, B.DAVIS
02/11/93 318 (H) -FISCAL NOTE (GOV) 2/11/93
02/09/93 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/11/93 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/11/93 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/13/93 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/10/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 62
SHORT TITLE: EMPLOYEE'S RIGHT TO USE LAWFUL PRODUCTS
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) GRUSSENDORF
TITLE: "An Act prohibiting employers from discriminating
against individuals who use legal products in a legal manner
outside of work."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/15/93 74 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/15/93 74 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE, JUDICIARY
02/16/93 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
02/16/93 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
02/17/93 358 (H) L&C RPT 4DP 2NR
02/17/93 358 (H) DP: SITTON, MULDER, WILLIAMS,
HUDSON
02/17/93 358 (H) NR: PORTER, GREEN
02/17/93 358 (H) -2 ZERO FNS (ADM, LABOR) 2/17/93
03/08/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/08/93 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/08/93 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/10/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 147
SHORT TITLE: EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY FOR REFERENCE INFO
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MACLEAN,Phillips,Porter
TITLE: "An Act relating to the disclosure of information by
an employer about the job performance of an employee or
former employee."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/10/93 292 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/10/93 292 (H) L&C, JUDICIARY
02/25/93 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
02/25/93 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/01/93 480 (H) L&C RPT 5DP
03/01/93 481 (H) DP: PORTER, MACKIE, WILLIAMS,
GREEN, HUDSON
03/01/93 481 (H) -3 ZERO FNS (ADM, COURT, LAW)
3/1/93
03/08/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/08/93 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/10/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 152
SHORT TITLE: JURISDICTION OF MAGISTRATES
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): JUDICIARY
TITLE: "An Act relating to magistrate jurisdiction."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/15/93 345 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/15/93 345 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY
02/25/93 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/25/93 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/01/93 481 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) 7DP
03/01/93 481 (H) DP: VEZEY,ULMER,B.DAVIS,OLBERG,
03/01/93 481 (H) DP: G.DAVIS, SANDERS, KOTT
03/01/93 481 (H) -ZERO FISCAL NOTE (COURT) 3/1/93
03/10/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 167
SHORT TITLE: AIR QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAM
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) HANLEY
TITLE: "An Act relating to air quality control and the
prevention, abatement, and control of air pollution;
relating to civil and criminal penalties, damages, and other
remedies for air quality control violations; clarifying the
definition of `hazardous substance' to include releases and
threatened release to the atmosphere; amending the lien
provisions relating to the oil and hazardous substance
release response fund; relating to inspection and
enforcement powers of the Department of Environmental
Conservation; and providing for an effective date."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/19/93 390 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/19/93 390 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE
03/05/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/05/93 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/10/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 93-30, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was called to
order at 1:12 p.m. on March 10, 1993. A quorum was present.
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that four bills were on the day's
calendar: HJR 3, Limiting Terms of Legislators; HB 152,
Jurisdiction of Magistrates; HB 62, Employee's Right to Use
Lawful Products; and HB 147, Employer's Liability for
Reference Info.
The Chairman announced that HB 167 was postponed to a time
uncertain. The Chairman stated that HJR 3 would be the
first item of business before the committee.
HJR 3 LIMITING TERMS OF LEGISLATORS
Number 044
REP. TERRY MARTIN, PRIME SPONSOR of HJR 3, said that the
idea of term limitations had been around since the Greek and
Roman empires. He commented that President Madison had been
a strong advocate of term limitations as a means of curbing
the power of special interest groups. Rep. Martin said that
resolutions pertaining to term limitations had been
introduced in the Alaska Legislature 19 times since 1960.
He noted that term limitations had support from a broad
spectrum of individuals.
REP. MARTIN commented that the public had spoken in support
of term limitations as a means of controlling the influence
of special interest groups and legislators who had served
for a long time. He said he agreed with the public, who
continually elected him, because they knew that he was an
advocate of term limitations. He noted that if HJR 3 were
enacted, he would have to stop running for office.
Number 140
REP. MARTIN said that HJR 3 had been crafted to reflect a
moderate approach to term limitations, in terms of what
other states had done. He stated that the National
Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) had reported that 29
states were now addressing the issue of term limitations.
He said HJR 3 would allow a person to serve a maximum of 12
years in the legislature before taking a required break. A
legislator could then continue to serve in the legislature
after that break, he added.
Number 154
REP. GREEN called Rep. Martin's attention to a possible
inconsistency in section 1 on page 1 of HJR 3.
Number 161
REP. MARTIN replied that the section that Rep. Green had
pointed out referred to appointments.
Number 170
REP. GREEN noted that HJR 3 would allow a person to serve a
maximum of four terms as a Representative and a maximum of
two terms as a Senator. He said if a person served two
Senate terms, for a total of eight years, and two House
terms, for a total of four years, he or she would end up
serving a grand total of 12 years. But, he said, HJR 3
limited combined service to 11 years. He commented that the
resolution would end up limiting either a second House term
or a second Senate term. He asked why HJR 3 referred to a
limit of 11 years, instead of 12 years.
Number 185
REP. MARTIN responded that the resolution had been drafted
the way that it was to accommodate the appointment of
legislators. He mentioned a situation involving the
appointment of Governor Egan. A lawsuit was filed against
the Governor, alleging that he could not run for a third
term. The Governor's contention was that since he was
appointed to his first term, that one did not count for the
purposes of term limitations.
Number 223
CHAIRMAN PORTER expressed his belief that HJR 3 prevented a
person from running for a term that she or he would be
prohibited from completing, under the provisions of the term
limitation law.
Number 245
REP. GREEN noted his continued concern over the number 11.
Number 247
REP. MARTIN said that the resolution would allow a person to
serve a maximum of 12 years in the legislature. He said
that he would have to consult with the Division of Legal
Services again as to why the number 11 was put into the
resolution.
Number 258
REP. PHILLIPS commented that she supported HJR 3, but
advocated a maximum of 16 years, instead of 12.
Number 266
REP. MARTIN replied that a maximum of 16 years would not
reflect a moderate approach, compared to term limitations
enacted in other states.
Number 270
REP. PHILLIPS stated that she was not concerned with what
other states were doing with regard to term limitations.
She commented that a person ought to be able to serve two
Senate terms and four House terms.
Number 277
REP. GREEN noted that HJR 3 should be amended so as to
change the maximum number of years a person could serve in
the legislature from 11 to 12 years.
REP. MARTIN said that he would consider Rep. Green's idea as
a friendly amendment.
REP. GREEN moved to amend the language on page 1, line 12,
deleting the word "eleven" and replacing it with the word
"twelve."
Number 298
REP. NORDLUND objected for the purposes of discussion. He
said that he supported Rep. Green's amendment. He noted
that a person might serve two terms in the House, for a
total of four years, and then move to the Senate, where he
or she would be limited to only one term. He withdrew his
objection.
Number 310
REP. PHILLIPS objected to the motion for the purposes of
discussing a term limitation of 16 years, instead of 11 or
12 years.
Number 313
REP. PHILLIPS indicated that she was aware that the national
average on term limitations was 12 years. However, she
stated that in Alaska, it was difficult to find people
willing to stay in office long enough to be effective, but
not so long as to remain in office for an excessive period
of time. She said that she agreed with the notion of term
limits, but felt that people should be able to serve two
terms in each body.
Number 326
REP. MARTIN cited the writings of President Madison, which
held that nine years was too long for a person to hold
public office. He noted the balancing act between
experienced legislators and "new blood." He expressed his
opinion that there was no shortage of candidates in Alaska.
He commented that, in his opinion, 16 years was way too long
for a person to serve in public office without taking a
break.
Number 344
REP. PHILLIPS noted that of all of the representatives in
the room, Rep. Martin was the one who had served closest to
16 years. She said that freshmen legislators began their
service with high hopes of what they would accomplish, but
those hopes were quickly dashed. She noted that it took a
new legislator time to get up to speed on the issues and the
process. She reiterated her support for a 16-year
limitation.
Number 363
REP. JAMES commented that, as a freshman legislator, she did
not think she would learn how to do her job in 16 years.
She said that when she was running for office, her
constituents told her that they supported term limits. She
had agreed with them during her campaign, but had nearly
changed her mind after two months of public service.
REP. JAMES said that the legislature was a whole new world
to her, very different than what she had expected before
arriving in Juneau. She commented that the learning curve
in the legislature was very steep. She stated that it would
take a good eight to ten years of legislative service for a
person to be an effective Finance Committee chair, in her
opinion.
Number 400
REP. JAMES expressed her concern that, because the capitol
was in Juneau, legislators almost had to give up their
existing jobs to serve in the legislature. She noted the
financial difficulty that her service in the legislature had
created. Rep. James commented that she saw some benefits to
legislators serving for long periods of time. She said that
she felt obligated to support term limits, because that was
what she said she would do during her campaign. She said
that if the legislature were to limit service to 16 years,
they might as well not limit service at all. She noted her
belief that 12 years was a reasonable limitation on terms.
(Rep. Davidson arrived at 1:30 p.m.)
Number 421
REP. MARTIN commented that it was important that the
legislature not pass a measure that the public perceived to
be a way to ensure the legislators' own longevity. He noted
that time was an extremely important factor when it came to
accomplishing a task. He said that everyone procrastinated
when they knew that they had a given amount of time during
which to accomplish a task. He said that given term limits,
legislators would work harder to accomplish their goals in
the time allotted to them.
Number 456
REP. JAMES noted that her constituents advocated term
limitations of eight years, which she felt was too short.
She expressed her opinion that 12 years was a good
compromise, which would meet the public's desire for term
limitations.
Number 464
REP. DAVIDSON asked Rep. Martin how many years he had served
in the legislature.
Number 467
REP. MARTIN replied that he was currently serving his
fifteenth year.
REP. DAVIDSON asked Rep. Martin if he honestly believed in
his resolution.
REP. MARTIN said that he absolutely believed in his
resolution, and noted that he had been sponsoring similar
resolutions ever since he began his service in the
legislature.
REP. DAVIDSON asked Rep. Martin what had prevented him from
voluntarily abiding by the terms of his yet-unpassed
resolution.
Number 472
REP. MARTIN said that as he was a staunch advocate of term
limitations; his voluntary resignation from public service
would aid the forces who objected to term limitations. He
said that he thought it was only fair to have six or eight
Democrats leave the legislature at the same time that he
did.
Number 482
REP. DAVIDSON noted that individuals were faced with fewer
and fewer choices as time went on. He commented that if he
lived in Rep. Martin's district, he might well choose to
vote for Rep. Martin for many years. He questioned whose
best interests would be served by term limitations.
Number 500
REP. MARTIN replied that the public's best interests were
served by term limitations. He reiterated his point that
the idea of term limitations was not new. He mentioned the
multiplicity of special interest groups and the advantages
of incumbent lawmakers. Rep. Martin spoke of the most
recent U.S. House of Representatives election, in which many
incumbents were defeated.
Number 524
REP. DAVIDSON asked Rep. Martin if there were interest
groups which controlled his vote.
Number 527
REP. MARTIN responded that he represented the views of many
interest groups, including the military and the Right to
Life movement.
Number 534
REP. DAVIDSON commented on a situation, caused by
reapportionment, in which some Senate terms were two years
long, while others were four years long. He asked how that
situation would mesh with HJR 3's language regarding full
and partial terms.
Number 544
REP. MARTIN replied that Rep. Davidson's comment answered
Rep. Green's earlier question.
Number 555
REP. DAVIDSON stated that it seemed that the people who
gained from term limitations were special interests. He
expressed his belief that information was power. He noted
that institutional memory translated to information, and
staff, bureaucrats, and lobbyists were the ones who carried
the institutional memory forward. He called HJR 3
unfortunate legislation, which sounded great, but limited
choices and held long-term dangers for democracy. He added
that he would vote against HJR 3.
Number 587
REP. GREEN commented that he still believed that the number
12 should be substituted for the number 11 in HJR 3. He
noted that a person could conceivably serve two Senate
terms, which together totalled four years. He suggested
amending the language in HJR 3 on line 10 to say "may serve
no more than eight years as a senator."
Number 606
REP. MARTIN said that he had discussed his resolution with
the NCSL and the Legislative Affairs Legal Services
Division. He noted that some states limited legislators to
one term only, ever. He said that in drafting his
resolution, he had tried to be flexible in accommodating
appointments and reapportionment.
REP. PHILLIPS asked Rep. Martin how many members of the
Alaska State Legislature had served over 12 years, and how
many had served over 16 years.
Number 625
REP. MARTIN replied that he believed that 12 legislators had
served more than 12 years and five had served over 14 years.
Number 646
CHAIRMAN PORTER said that the committee was currently
considering a proposed amendment, which would change, on
line 12, the word "eleven" to "twelve."
Number 649
REP. DAVIDSON noted his concern that a person could serve
eight years as a member of the House, but would be unable to
serve even one full term in the Senate, as HJR 3 was
currently drafted.
CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that his interpretation was the same
as that of Rep. Davidson.
REP. GREEN noted that if the language were amended to read
"twelve" instead of "eleven," HJR 3 would allow a person to
serve one full Senate term after serving eight years in the
House.
REP. DAVIDSON said that he did not understand the rationale
behind not allowing a person to serve two terms as a
Senator.
Number 670
CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that he would like to address the
amendment currently before the committee to change the word
"eleven" to "twelve" on line 12.
REP. PHILLIPS moved to amend the amendment to replace the
word "twelve" with "sixteen."
CHAIRMAN PORTER objected for the purposes of discussion.
REP. GREEN mentioned Rep. James' earlier comment about how
the public would perceive term limitations that were rather
long.
Number 691
CHAIRMAN PORTER called for a roll call vote. Reps.
Davidson, Kott, Nordlund, and Phillips voted "yea." Reps.
Green, James, and Porter voted "nay." And so, the amendment
to the amendment passed.
Number 698
CHAIRMAN PORTER indicated that the amendment now before the
committee would change the word "eleven" on line 12 to
"sixteen." He objected to the amendment, commenting that
his constituents advocated term limits of eight years. He
said that he felt that an eight-year term limit was too
short. He reminded the committee members that the Governor
was limited to serving eight years. He mentioned that the
public would not support a term limit of 16 years. He
strongly urged a vote of "nay" on the amendment.
Number 736
REP. DAVIDSON respectfully disagreed with the Chairman's
comparison between the legislative and executive branches of
government. He said that the Governor had power far beyond
that of individual legislators. He noted the powerlessness
felt by legislators when faced with a bill which enjoyed the
support of high-pressure lobbyists. He said it was
inappropriate to compare the executive branch with the
legislative branch in the case of term limitations.
REP. DAVIDSON commented that he considered himself a citizen
legislator. He said that he had a family and had served in
the House for six years. He mentioned his prior service on
the Kodiak city council and school board, and described the
family and financial sacrifices that went hand-in-hand with
public service. He said that calling 16 years of service in
the legislature a "career" was stretching the idea of what a
career was all about. He commented that what legislators
sometimes had to endure was sheer drudgery and pain, with
slave wages to boot.
REP. DAVIDSON stated that 16 years was not too long for a
term limitation. He said that to encourage people to serve
in the legislature, they should at least be allowed to get
past the learning curve.
Number 788
REP. PHILLIPS said that 72 percent of respondents to her
constituent poll indicated that they supported term
limitations of eight years in the House and eight years in
the Senate.
Number 796
CHAIRMAN PORTER said that the amendment before the committee
was to change the word "eleven" to "sixteen" on page 1, line
12. A roll call vote was taken. Reps. Kott, Nordlund,
Phillips and Davidson voted "yea." Reps. Green, James and
Porter voted "nay." And so, the amendment was approved.
TAPE 93-30, SIDE B
Number 000
REP. MARTIN stated that the amendment made by the committee
destroyed the idea behind HJR 3. He said that he would not
be the author of a resolution calling for term limitations
of 16 years.
Number 012
CHAIRMAN PORTER called an "at ease" to consider the
sponsor's comment.
Number 027
CHAIRMAN PORTER called the meeting back to order.
REP. PHILLIPS moved to rescind the committee's action on the
amendment changing the number "eleven" to "sixteen." There
being no objection, it was so ordered.
CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that an amendment, replacing the word
"eleven" with "twelve" on line 12 of HJR 3, was now before
the committee.
REP. PHILLIPS moved to amend the amendment, with the effect
of changing the word "eleven" on line 12 to "fourteen."
REP. GREEN objected.
Number 065
REP. JAMES asked the Chairman to outline the action taken
thus far on HJR 3.
Number 110
CHAIRMAN PORTER explained that the committee had not yet
amended HJR 3. The committee had made many motions to amend
the resolution, but none had been accomplished, he said. He
entertained a motion to rescind all previous motions to
amend.
REP. KOTT made the motion to rescind all previous motions to
amend.
CHAIRMAN PORTER said that Rep. Kott's motion would return
the committee to addressing CSHJR 3(STA). Hearing no
objection, the motion was adopted.
Number 140
REP. NORDLUND made a motion to amend the language on page 1,
line 12, so as to replace the word "eleven" with "fourteen."
There was objection.
Number 153
REP. GREEN commented that the language in HJR 3 relating to
Senate terms seemed to cause difficulty, with respect to
reapportionment. He suggested modifying the language
relating to Senate terms to refer to eight years, instead of
to the number of terms.
REP. GREEN noted that if the resolution were to be amended
to limit legislative service to 14 years, the public would
likely perceive that the legislature had in effect done
nearly nothing to limit terms.
Number 197
CHAIRMAN PORTER expressed concern that changing "eleven" to
"fourteen" would have deleterious effects on other language
in HJR 3.
Number 206
REP. GREEN stated that limiting service to 14 years would
prevent a person from serving four terms in the House and
two terms in the Senate.
Number 220
REP. DAVIDSON commented that he did not understand why the
committee was playing numbers games. He said he could
envision a situation in which a person served four House
terms and then was elected to the Senate. That person would
only be allowed to serve one Senate term, regardless of how
that person's constituents felt. He said the committee had
already voted to amend the bill to limit terms to 16 years,
but was now continuing to play numbers games.
CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that the committee members now had
CSHJR 3(STA) in front of them, with a motion to replace the
number "eleven" with "fourteen."
Number 265
REP. NORDLUND explained that a person who wanted to serve
two terms in the Senate could choose to end his or her House
career at six years. However, he noted the confounding
situation of reapportionment, which created Senate terms of
both two and four years. Consequently, he said, there were
numerous possible scenarios for how a person might serve 12
years in the legislature.
REP. NORDLUND noted that he offered his amendment changing
the word "eleven" to "fourteen" as a compromise.
Number 283
REP. DAVIDSON stated that even a term limitation of 14 years
would take away choices from the people. He commented that
putting numbers into HJR 3 which were not multiples of four
confused the issue. He said that if there was going to be a
limitation of eight years' service in the House, then there
ought to be an equal limitation for service in the Senate.
Number 299
CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that he agreed with Rep. Nordlund
that 14 years would be a compromise. He noted that term
limitations by definition took away some choices.
Number 334
CHAIRMAN PORTER called for a roll call vote on the amendment
changing "eleven" to "fourteen." Reps. Kott, Nordlund and
Phillips voted "yea." Reps. Davidson, Green, James and
Porter voted "nay." And so, the amendment failed.
The Chairman noted that the committee still had CSHJR 3(STA)
before it. He mentioned that two people wished to testify
on HJR 3.
Number 339
RESA JERREL, representing the NATIONAL FEDERATION OF
INDEPENDENT BUSINESSES (NFIB), testified in support of HJR
3. She said that in 1991, 80 percent of respondents to the
NFIB member poll voted in favor of term limitations. She
added that the majority of respondents advocated limits of
eight years in each body of the legislature.
Number 350
REP. GREEN asked Ms. Jerrel who had been polled.
Number 354
MS. JERREL replied that the entire Alaska membership of the
NFIB was polled. She said that when she put the question on
the ballot, she did not think to ask about cumulative term
limits.
Number 360
REP. DAVIDSON asked Ms. Jerrel if she received responses
from all 5,000 Alaska NFIB members.
Number 367
MS. JERREL said that there had been a response rate of
approximately 20 percent to her poll.
Number 381
REP. DAVIDSON asked if the return rate was normal, or if the
issue of term limitations was very important to the NFIB
members, resulting in a higher-than-average response rate.
MS. JERREL said that the 20 percent response rate was
normal.
REP. DAVIDSON said that his understanding was that NFIB
members did not want anyone to serve more than 16 years in
the legislature.
MS. JERREL reiterated her point that her poll question did
not address combined terms in the House and the Senate.
REP. DAVIDSON asked Ms. Jerrel to provide the committee with
a copy of the ballot question regarding term limitations.
MS. JERREL indicated that she would be happy to provide a
copy of the ballot question to the committee.
Number 387
REP. KOTT mentioned that a 20 percent response rate was
considered to be a very high rate of return.
Number 394
REP. JAMES said that as a former NFIB member, she felt that
their questionnaires were very indicative of the attitudes
of the members.
MS. JERREL said that the ballots were designed to include
what NFIB considered critical issues that would be addressed
by the legislature. She noted that the questionnaires
included "pro" and "con" statements for each ballot
question.
Number 413
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Ms. Jerrel if she believed that
respondents meant that a person should serve either a
maximum of eight years in the House, or a maximum of eight
years in the Senate, or a maximum of eight years in each
house for a total of 16 years.
MS. JERREL responded that the questionnaire had asked "How
many terms should a member of the House of Representatives
serve?" and "How many terms should a member of the Senate
serve?" She indicated that a majority had voted for eight
years, in response to both questions.
MS. JERREL added that 93 percent of respondents to the House
question advocated term limitations from four to eight
years, and 88 percent advocated two Senate terms. She said
that she felt that was an indication that NFIB members might
approve a cumulative term limitation of 12 years.
Number 435
REP. KOTT said that his interpretation of the NFIB poll
results showed that people favored service of eight years,
period, whether in the House or the Senate.
Number 454
HEATH HILYARD, a POLITICAL SCIENCE STUDENT from the
UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA-FAIRBANKS, testified in opposition to
HJR 3. He said that he had written a thesis paper on the
issue of term limits. He stated that 40 state legislatures
had introduced legislation limiting the terms of
legislators. He noted that there had been a major push for
term limitations in the state of Washington in 1990, but the
effort had failed.
MR. HILYARD said that term limitations robbed people of a
legitimate choice and responsibility. He stated that term
limits gave voters an opportunity to not think, and took
responsibility away from the voters. He noted the growing
distrust and disgust that citizens felt toward government.
He called HJR 3 a "band-aid" solution to the problem.
MR. HILYARD said that society was growing more and more
ignorant about government. He stated that his argument was
solely ideological and theoretical. He commented that the
American people were becoming less responsive and less
responsible. He stated that HJR 3 would take away Alaskans'
right to a legitimate choice.
MR. HILYARD expressed his opinion that the "power elite" in
American society was the voting public. He said that
instead of short-term remedies, government should instead
focus on educating citizens.
Number 522
REP. GREEN expressed his appreciation for Mr. Hilyard's
testimony. He asked him to discuss the advantages enjoyed
by incumbent legislators.
Number 554
MR. HILYARD commented that incumbents did have some
advantages over non-incumbents. He reiterated his point
that education was the ultimate answer to society's
problems, not term limits. He cited the need for increased
ethical standards and campaign regulation. He said term
limits might be unconstitutional.
Number 598
REP. DAVIDSON noted that he was an incumbent legislator now,
but he got to be an incumbent legislator by beating an
incumbent. He added that it was not impossible to beat an
incumbent legislator. He asked Mr. Hilyard to discuss some
good aspects of term limits.
Number 609
MR. HILYARD replied that the purpose behind term limit
legislation was good. He said term limits would protect the
American people from corrupt politicians, to some extent.
He noted that ultimately, however, term limits did a
disservice to the American people, as they prevented
citizens from having the opportunity to become more educated
and aware so that they would be able to spot corrupt
politicians.
Number 664
REP. KOTT asked Mr. Hilyard to think about representative
democracy and the public's desire for term limits, in light
of his testimony in opposition to term limits.
Number 670
MR. HILYARD expressed his opinion that "delegates" were
weather vanes of public opinion, whereas "representatives"
made decisions for the good of the people. He said that he
did not believe in the delegate theory, but rather in the
representative theory of democracy.
Number 694
REP. JAMES offered an amendment changing the word "eleven"
to "fourteen" on line 12 of CSHJR 3(STA).
Number 698
REP. KOTT objected. He said the committee had already voted
on that amendment.
Number 700
CHAIRMAN PORTER said that he would rule Rep. James' motion
in order, because if the committee failed to pass out HJR 3,
it would die in the Judiciary Committee.
Number 704
REP. DAVIDSON asked why letting HJR 3 die in committee was
not a viable option.
TAPE 93-31, SIDE A
Number 003
CHAIRMAN PORTER ruled that Rep. James' motion was in order.
Number 012
REP. DAVIDSON objected to Rep. James' motion, for the
purpose of amending her amendment, replacing "fourteen" with
"fifteen." Hearing objection, a roll call vote was taken.
Reps. Nordlund and Davidson voted "yea." Reps. Kott,
Phillips, Green, James and Porter voted "nay." And so, the
amendment to the amendment failed.
A roll call vote was taken on amending CSHJR 3(STA) to
replace "eleven" with "fourteen." Reps. Nordlund, Phillips,
Davidson, James and Porter voted "yea." Reps. Kott and
Green voted "nay." And so, the amendment was adopted.
REP. GREEN noted that he was still concerned that language
on line 10 of the resolution might restrict some Senators
from serving more than four years due to reapportionment.
Number 123
REP. PHILLIPS said the committee should move the bill out,
but request that the Legal Services Division clarify the
language regarding Senate terms later.
REP. JAMES stated that the Judiciary Committee had no
business passing on a piece of legislation that would not
pass legal muster.
Number 135
CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that he was concerned with the
language pertaining to Senate terms, but not terribly
confident about the proposed solution to the problematic
language.
REP. JAMES said the committee could craft the bill so as to
put a limit on the cumulative number of years that a person
could serve in the legislature and not break the requirement
down any further with regard to House and Senate terms. She
suggested that the Legal Services Division explore some
other ideas for term limitations.
CHAIRMAN PORTER responded that the committee could not ask
the Legal Services Division to come up with the "best"
option, as HJR 3 set out one method in particular.
Number 180
REP. GREEN suggested that a subcommittee be appointed to
create acceptable language for HJR 3.
Number 187
CHAIRMAN PORTER appointed Reps. Nordlund and Kott, along
with himself, to form a subcommittee on HJR 3.
REP. KOTT stated that because he was a co-sponsor of HJR 3,
he would request that the Chairman appoint another member to
serve on the subcommittee in his stead.
CHAIRMAN PORTER appointed Rep. Green to serve on the
subcommittee, instead of Rep. Kott.
Number 197
REP. DAVIDSON applauded the decision to hold HJR 3 in
committee, due to the gravity of constitutional amendments.
He said that he would like to understand why the delegates
to the Constitutional Convention opted not to impose term
limitations. He questioned what had happened since the
Constitutional Convention that would warrant the imposition
of term limitations.
REP. DAVIDSON mentioned Mr. Hilyard's comment about the need
to educate citizens. He said that when constitutional
amendments were hurried through the legislative process, the
legislature was guilty of not taking the time to educate
constituents. He said the committee had touched on a few
arguments for and against term limits, but commented that
the committee had only scratched the surface. He urged the
committee to consult with constitutional lawyers and with
people in other states that had term limits.
Number 247
REP. JAMES said she would consult with her constituents on
the issue of term limitations, and asked the Chairman to not
bring HJR 3 back before the committee until she had time to
do so.
CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that the subcommittee would endeavor
to rework the language in HJR 3 and bring the resolution
back before the committee at a time uncertain.
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that HB 152, Jurisdiction of
Magistrates, would not be heard today; rather, it would be
taken up by the committee on the following Wednesday.
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that HB 62, Employee's Right to
Use Lawful Products, was the next item of business before
the committee.
HB 62 EMPLOYEE'S RIGHT TO USE LAWFUL PRODUCTS
Number 284
GAYLE HORETSKI, COMMITTEE COUNSEL to the HOUSE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE, stated that the committee had requested that a
committee substitute for HB 62 be drafted. She distributed
a memorandum from Teresa Cramer of the Legal Services
Division to committee members.
MS. HORETSKI called the members' attention to page 2, lines
21 and 22, of the draft committee substitute dated March 9,
1993. She commented that Rep. Phillips had suggested
amending the definitions of "worksite" and "premises of the
employer." The bill drafter had opted not to define
"worksite," but rather to say that "premises of the
employer" included camps or other living accommodations
provided or maintained by the employer at or near the
worksite.
MS. HORETSKI noted that there was a companion bill in the
Senate, SB 69, for which a committee substitute had been
passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. She commented
that the Senate Judiciary Committee had also defined
"premises of the employer," although in a manner somewhat
different from the language in the proposed House Judiciary
committee substitute for HB 62.
Number 361
REP. PHILLIPS stated that she had spoken with Rep.
Grussendorf, sponsor of HB 62, earlier in the day. They had
agreed that language in HB 62 could be amended to read,
"premises of the employer includes camps." She said that
they had also agreed that the bill could refer to "camps or
other living accommodations provided or maintained by the
employer adjacent to the worksite." She noted that her
preference was the former alternative.
CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that the language might need to
specify "on or adjacent to."
REP. PHILLIPS agreed with the Chairman. She noted that Rep.
Grussendorf's aide had informed her that the sponsor was
amenable to including the phrase "on or adjacent to." She
said that the language was amended in an attempt to exclude
situations in which an employer was paying to house
employees in a motel or other housing where there were no
restrictions on use of lawful products.
Number 400
REP. DAVIDSON asked if an amendment had been offered.
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Rep. Grussendorf's aide to address the
proposed language change.
Number 403
DOUG RICKEY, STAFF to REP. BEN GRUSSENDORF, commented that
Rep. Grussendorf supported the language which he and Rep.
Phillips had discussed earlier in the day. Mr. Rickey added
that Rep. Grussendorf would also be comfortable with the
"adjacent to" language.
Number 414
REP. DAVIDSON asked if, under the amended definition,
"premises of the employer" would include a house in Juneau
provided by the employer to an employee of the Greens Creek
Mine.
REP. PHILLIPS replied that Rep. Davidson's question was the
reason why she was advocating the language "premises of the
employer includes camps."
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked whether the committee would need to
define "camps."
REP. PHILLIPS expressed her opinion that a definition of
"camps" probably already existed in statute.
CHAIRMAN PORTER noted his concern over referring to camps,
as he said there were work camps and Boy Scout camps.
REP. PHILLIPS commented that the Boy Scout Association was
not an employer.
CHAIRMAN PORTER said that the Boy Scout Association did
employ people to supervise children.
REP. PHILLIPS suggested including the rest of the wording,
which had been previously discussed by the committee.
CHAIRMAN PORTER supported adding the language, "includes
camps or other living accommodations provided or maintained
by the employer on or adjacent to the worksite."
Number 471
REP. DAVIDSON made a motion to adopt the draft committee
substitute. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
REP. DAVIDSON then made a motion to amend the draft
committee substitute on page 2, line 22, to delete "near"
and add "adjacent to."
CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that as proposed to be amended, the
bill would read, "employer at or adjacent to the worksite."
Hearing no objection to the amendment, it was adopted.
REP. DAVIDSON made a motion to pass CSHB 62(JUD) out of
committee with individual recommendations and a zero fiscal
note. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
Number 609
REP. GREEN commented that the companion bill in the Senate
was in the Senate Rules Committee.
CHAIRMAN PORTER responded by saying that SB 69 would likely
be referred directly to the House Judiciary Committee when
it was transmitted to the House.
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the committee would now take
up HB 147, Employer's Liability for Reference Info.
(Rep. Davidson left.)
HB 147 EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY FOR REFERENCE INFO
Number 619
MS. HORETSKI called the members' attention to a draft
committee substitute for HB 147 dated March 9, 1993. She
said in the original bill there was a question regarding the
construction of the language. Additionally, she said, Rep.
Davidson had offered an amendment inserting "negligently and
recklessly" before "by the former employer" on line 12, when
the bill was last before the committee.
MS. HORETSKI said that she had rewritten the bill, resulting
in new numbered paragraphs at the bottom of the committee
substitute. She added that she had not changed the language
of the bill, but merely the construction. The bill now
read, "For purposes of this section, the presumption of good
faith is rebutted upon a showing that the former employer
(1) knowingly or recklessly disclosed false or deliberately
misleading information; (2) disclosed information with a
malicious purpose; or (3) disclosed information in violation
of a civil right of the employee or former employee that is
protected under AS 18.80 or under federal law."
MS. HORETSKI said that Rep. Davidson's amendment would have
added "negligently or recklessly" on line 14 in front of
what was now the new paragraph (2). She said that some of
that language was in conflict with the language regarding
malicious purpose. Therefore, "recklessly" was added to
line 12; so if an employer knowingly or recklessly disclosed
false or deliberately misleading information, he or she
would lose the presumption of good faith.
MS. HORETSKI called the members' attention to a memorandum
from the Legal Services Division regarding the definitions
of "negligently" and "recklessly" in the context of civil
law. In the memorandum, however, definitions of those terms
were cited from criminal law.
CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that the rewritten language in the
draft committee substitute made more sense than that in the
original bill. With regard to Rep. Davidson's amendment, he
expressed his opinion that inclusion of "negligently" would
defeat the purpose of the bill.
CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that inclusion of "negligently" could
impact employers who made simple errors, with no intention
to harm an employee.
Number 637
REP. NORDLUND commented that Rep. Davidson was attempting to
ensure that employers acted with care when disclosing
information regarding employees. He said he would like to
see employers be able to tell the truth, without facing
negative consequences, but added that he would also like to
see employers act carefully.
Number 661
REP. JAMES expressed her concern that including the words
"negligently" and "recklessly" practically negated the
intent of HB 147. She said that in her understanding, the
intent of the bill was to put the burden on the employee to
prove that an employer was causing harm. However, she said,
including "negligently" and "recklessly" could put the
burden on the employer.
Number 679
CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that his interpretation of HB 147
was not to establish a burden of proof, but simply to allow
an employer to speak freely with another employer regarding
an employee's job performance. He stated that the committee
needed to agree upon where the line should be drawn, with
regard to the care exercised by an employer. He suggested
that the committee hold the bill until the Legal Services
Division could provide a definition of "negligently" and
"recklessly" in civil law.
Number 705
REP. PHILLIPS asked for clarification on the original bill
language on line 13 and the rewrite of that line in the
draft committee substitute.
Number 712
CHAIRMAN PORTER replied that the language change was
technical in nature.
Number 716
MS. HORETSKI agreed with the Chairman that the change was
merely technical, not substantive.
Number 723
REP. KOTT said that perhaps the bill should provide that an
employer could only disclose factual information, which
could be substantiated.
Number 734
CHAIRMAN PORTER invited Rep. Kott to work on language
accomplishing that goal.
Number 740
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN PORTER adjourned the meeting at 3:24 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|