Legislature(1995 - 1996)
05/07/1995 01:53 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
May 7, 1995
1:53 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Brian Porter, Chairman
Representative Joe Green, Vice Chairman
Representative Al Vezey
Representative Cynthia Toohey
Representative David Finkelstein
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Con Bunde
Representative Bettye Davis
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SB 172: "An Act eliminating `monte carlo' nights as an authorized
form of charitable gaming; and providing for an effective
date."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
WITNESS REGISTER
None
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 172
SHORT TITLE: ELIMINATE MONTE CARLO NIGHTS
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
04/28/95 1311 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/28/95 1312 (S) JUDICIARY
04/29/95 1336 (S) JUD RPT 3DP
04/29/95 1336 (S) FISCAL NOTE FORTHCOMING
04/29/95 1336 (S) FIN REFERRAL ADDED
04/29/95 (S) JUD AT 02:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
04/29/95 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/29/95 (S) RLS AT 06:30 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
04/30/95 1362 (S) FIN RPT 2DP 1DNP 3NR
04/30/95 1362 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (S.FIN/REV)
04/30/95 (S) FIN AT 01:00 PM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/30/95 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
04/30/95 (S) RLS AT 05:40 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
05/01/95 1379 (S) RULES RPT 2CAL 1OTHER 2NR 5/1/95
05/01/95 1383 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
05/01/95 1383 (S) ADVANCE TO THIRD READING FLD
Y12 N7 E1
05/01/95 1383 (S) THIRD READING 5/2 CALENDAR
05/02/95 1420 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SB 172
05/02/95 1420 (S) PASSED Y12 N8
05/02/95 1421 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE PASSED Y18 N2
05/02/95 1421 (S) ZHAROFF NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
05/03/95 1497 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP
05/03/95 1498 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
05/04/95 1848 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
05/04/95 1848 (H) JUDICIARY
05/07/95 (H) JUD AT 01:02 PM CAPITOL 120
ACTION NARRATIVE
NOTE: No tape is available for this meeting due to a malfunction
of the taping equipment.
The House Judiciary Standing Committee was called to order at 1:53
p.m. on Sunday, May 7, 1995. A quorum was present.
Representatives Bunde and Davis were absent. CHAIRMAN BRIAN PORTER
stated that SB 172 was the only bill to be heard.
SB 172 - ELIMINATE MONTE CARLO NIGHTS
CHAIRMAN PORTER explained that this was essentially the same bill
as HB 327 that they had passed out of committee a few days ago.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN said that he would not bring up
all of the same points he had debated on the House version of this
legislation, but he did ask that the minutes from HB 327 be
included with SB 172 for the record, since the points he had made
for HB 327 are also true for SB 172.
THE FOLLOWING MINUTES ON HB 327 ARE FROM THE HOUSE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE MEETING DATED MAY 5, 1995:
"CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that in communication through the
Speaker with the Attorney General who says we need this bill, so we
will consider it. This bill eliminates monte carlo nights. He
stated that he could be the reason we have monte carlo. Back in
the 60s he came to visit his mother in Anchorage and found her
having a monte carlo day with her Soroptimist Club, and he had to
close her down. It is gambling. They asked what they needed to do
in order to do this, and he told her she needed to go to Juneau and
get a permit or a change in the law to allow her to do that, and
they did.
"CHAIRMAN PORTER said the question is, `Why do we want to shut
down monte carlo nights?' The answer is that monte carlo is a
procedure in our law that allows the following to happen: A
charity may operate a virtual casino for one night a year with
craps and roulette and "21", and those kinds of things for members
who wish to contribute to this charity, but do have the opportunity
through this process to actually win something or their investment.
They buy chips with real money, play games all night, and those who
have won, and end up with more chips than they started with, can go
and redeem the chips for prizes that have been donated. It is a
very nice function for charity. The Indian Gaming Commission has
gained through court decisions, that people who allow certain kinds
of gaming permitted in their state, also have to allow Indian
tribes within the definition of Indian country may then negotiate
with the state, so that little innocuous monte carlo, provides the
opportunity for casino gambling in Alaska.
"REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked if in keeping monte carlo nights, we
allow Indian gaming, if the reverse would also be true. If we get
rid of monte carlo, will we not have the full fledged casino? Can
we be assured of that?
"CHAIRMAN PORTER answered that there are assumptions you have to
make. The assumption most of us are running with here, and perhaps
not correctly, but at least, in his opinion, that is not something
we would like to see happen in this state. Assuming that is the
policy of the Administration, they would be negotiating with the
Indian tribes to try to avoid full fledged casino operations in
Alaska. With the assumption that they would take that position,
their position on being able to successfully negotiate that
position is enhanced tremendously if this is not in the law.
Conversely, it is almost guaranteed to fail if the compact cannot
be reached and is appealed, if it stays in the law. The cruise
ship bill fell into that same category and that is why we are
sunsetting the thing, so that they can negotiate in good faith
saying that will not occur after September 1 in this state.
"REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said that brings him to his next question.
If we did that for the cruise ships, he did not know that it would
make a difference. He has heard from a number of charities, most
notably, Greater Anchorage, Incorporated, where they have monte
carlo night not only as a money generating thing, but as a part of
the festival, where people are out having a good time, and that
makes donating a little more comfortable. Could we put a sunset
date in this of December 31, 1995? Would it still accomplish what
we are trying to accomplish?
"CHAIRMAN PORTER answered that was a great idea. As a matter of
fact, if you read Section 6...
"REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said "January 1996. Obviously this bill is
hot off of the presses."
"REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated that is not Representative Bunde's
question. His question was a sunset clause. What you have here is
an effective date clause.
"REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said that is essentially the same thing.
"REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY argued they are not at all the same. This
Act takes effect January 1, 1996. That is not in any aspect, a
sunset clause.
"CHAIRMAN PORTER said he thought the bill would eliminate monte
carlo nights as of January 1, 1996. It has the same effect.
"REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said, `He wants to sunset the
prohibition.'
"REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said, that, no, he wanted to give monte carlo
and the charities a time to phase out, and now they have until the
end of the year, if this were to pass.
"CHAIRMAN PORTER said he did not know how Representative Bunde had
said it, but knew what he meant.
"REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY felt the problem here is a gross error in
federal law, and that is really where the matter needs to be
addressed.
"CHAIRMAN PORTER did not disagree.
"REPRESENTATIVE BETTYE DAVIS asked if we had information on what
has happened in other states where they have full fledged gambling
on Indian reservations. They do not necessarily comply with state
law, and are still doing it. How is this law going to keep it from
happening in our state?
"CHAIRMAN PORTER said one reason he went to the NCSL conference was
to get the full day Indian gaming seminar the day before. The
states that have this are kind of all over the board, because they
have developed this case law, and been guided by different kinds of
decisions throughout the last couple of years when they have
engaged in these negotiations with their individual Indian tribes.
Some governors and legislatures have come from different positions
of policy, too. What they have negotiated in the compacts that
exist are a gambit of some allowing it, and others not allowing it.
Those who have tried to revisit totally, have had mixed case and
federal court reviews, too. The most relevant one is under review
again at the Ninth Circuit, which is our Federal Court of Appeals
for the state. Unfortunately, it is kind of unsettled for us as to
just exactly where we are. What you try to do is build the best
hand that you can hold while sitting down in these negotiations.
Having these things off of our books would provide a much better
position to argue from.
"REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said he attended the same conference, and
while he does not have any personal heartburn with gambling of many
kinds, it became very apparent that for Alaska, any casino
operation, no matter what entity ran it, would be a disaster
financially. Obviously money had to come from out of your local
community, out of your state, and even out of your country, if you
will, because it involves disposable income, and if all the local
people take their disposable income to the casino, then the
hamburger joints, bowling alleys, and all of these other places
that survive on disposable income go away. It is just not good for
the local community.
"CHAIRMAN PORTER added that sometimes the income is not disposable.
"REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN felt the most likely scenario, if it
were going to be allowed in Alaska, under the status quo, would
only be relatively few areas that are deemed Indian land. He felt
the most likely areas were remote villages. There are very few
villages who, under the 1971 Settlement Act, chose to hold their
own reservations.
"CHAIRMAN PORTER said that once it is allowed, there will be other
communities trying. Tyonek is already making noises like they want
to try.
"REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said his point is that first of all,
they have to ask why it has not occurred already. All over the
rest of the country under the exact same law, and the exact same
circumstances, these casinos exist. This is not just some
discussion that is going on. He said Indian casinos are all over
the place. The reason it has not happened here is that areas that
the entities they just described have no interest in it, or are in
lousy locations, and the point that was made by Representative
Bunde is true. They do not have very many people to hit. The ones
most likely to do it, are the ones who are on some sort of tourist
route. This is going to tend to be a Southeast place that can
somehow get ferries or cruise ships to come by. He thought this
was a far fetched reason to get rid of monte carlo nights, and he
has nothing against monte carlo nights. Also he does not see
anything wrong with Indian gaming. He felt it should be regulated,
and they do not necessarily want it near our large populations, but
this is a self-determination issue. He is affected by the fact
that two of his brothers are Indians, one whose tribe has chosen to
pursue this avenue. They are very poor down in Arizona, as are
many of our Natives in Alaska. He found it hard to imagine that we
would decide that the Indian entities that want to pursue this do
not have enough self-determination to make that decision for
themselves, and that we are so anti-gambling that we are going to
preclude that, but at the same time, we just passed a law saying
that cruise ships can have all out casinos while they are in Alaska
waters. Why would we preclude one and then allow another? He does
not see a strong reason to do this.
"REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked, `Are you going to get him, Mr.
Chairman? I will.'
"REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he, too, attended the gambling seminar
in San Diego. The stories they told from the states that had
gambling were horrendous, but the bottom line was that if you do
not have an outside source of people to come and gamble, you are
doomed to failure. The reason the cruise ship gambling works is
because they take their people with them. They pick them up in
some foreign port and they bring them in, and they are not allowed
to gamble within three miles of a port here. They have got their
gamblers, but when you go to some place like Metlakatla, you really
do not have a large draw area, so even if for some reason that
would become some sort of a Mecca for people to swing by and be
able to say they played cards at Metlakatla, is not going to get it
done for the rest of the year. There is tourist season, and then
there are nine other months when they would have to depend on their
local people. We know it is not just disposable income that goes
into gambling, and the state ends up holding the bag for people who
have somehow been lured into this thing repeatedly. Statistically,
they showed that if you were not in an area where you could draw in
business from outside of your community, you were doomed to
failure.
"REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY was concerned about people using their Aid
to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) checks to gamble, so the
state would always be feeding that whole gambling group. It is bad
news.
"CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that in response to Representative
Finkelstein's concerns, it is just now coming into the light up
here because of ANCSA. We are the only state in that situation.
Most of the land that might have been categorized that way was
signed off of that category and we still dispute as to whether that
is or is not Indian country.
"REPRESENTATIVE GREEN wondered why we were allowing this to
continue through the fall until January.
"CHAIRMAN PORTER guessed it was probably because there are some
monte carlo functions already scheduled for the fall. He really
did not know.
"REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated the reason for his concern is that the
longer this continues, the worse the situation gets as far as the
federal government observing what the state is doing. Unless there
is some strong reason or some major thing that comes up before the
end of the year, he thought this time period should be shortened.
"REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY hoped that after the state has settled its
position on gambling and gaming, that they could come back and
visit a way for the charities to raise funds, because we have put
so much effort into making them responsible for their monies, and
now we are taking it away from them. It is a very harsh treatment,
and we really need to revisit that.
"REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY thought the only communities possibly
pursuing this include Metlakatla, Angoon, Klawock and Kake. He did
not see how it could be possible for any kind of gambling casino to
be economically feasible in those communities. He thought they
were trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill. The problem
does lie with the federal law, and if we try to take the burden on
ourselves, we are really not addressing the problem. We need to be
addressing this with our Congressional Delegation. A Resolution
would be more appropriate than a statute.
"CHAIRMAN PORTER could not disagree that the problem is at the
federal level, but he did not know if it would be solvable in the
period of time during which we are required to negotiate with
tribes. There is a chance that at some point in time, the
presumption of good faith negotiations goes away and it could be
turned around, but we do not even have the right to appeal this
final decision of the Gaming Commission. He does not like this
solution, but what it does is give us six or seven months to work
on it, and we would not be devastating any charities if they found
the solution between now and then, and they would only be without
the ability to have monte carlo for a month until we got geared up
next January.
"REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said they have no evidence before us
that there is anything wrong with monte carlo nights. He thought
monte carlo nights were great and were one of the most charitable,
social occasions, and all of the ones he has ever been to have been
very nice events that serve a very good cause. They are also one
of the very few options people have in that realm, because the same
crowd is not going to come and play bingo. Those are two different
crowds. The people who put on monte carlo nights, put in tons of
time and they turn volunteer effort into money. It takes a hundred
volunteers to run a monte carlo night. What we are doing is
getting rid of something that is definitely good to make our hand
somewhat stronger over something that we are not even sure how bad
it is. These small communities could already be doing this, but if
not, the reason they are not is because they will not make money.
It is the tribal authority or whatever entity they have who is in
charge. It is not some outside entity trying to make money off of
the small community. So the money they make from their people all
goes into a pool that is used for their people. All they are doing
is putting money into the community funds that is often used for
community good.
"REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated that the issue here that we are
not really talking about is Indian self-determination, and these
folks made the decision not to opt into the Native Claims
Settlement Act. Tetlin was in that same circumstance. They chose
to remain in control of their own communities, and for the main
reason of self-determination. Gambling is not that popular and
does not have the support of all of our citizens, but he felt that
was what Indian self-determination comes down to. We sometimes
have to decide that we cannot control what goes on in their
communities.
"REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY made a motion to move HB 327 out of
committee.
"REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN made a motion to amend the bill first.
Amendment Number 1 would move the date from January to March. The
legislature can never act within a month, the way things work
around here. He thought they should allow two more months, so that
if this all works out, there does not have to be a period where
this is made illegal, because it would only preclude activities
during that one month, these activities involve months and months
of planning and so it would probably preclude it over the first
half of the year.
"CHAIRMAN PORTER objected to the amendment. He did not know what
the schedule of negotiations were or what it was that drove this
particular date. If this goes to the floor of the House, he will
know by then what the reason for that particular effective date is.
"REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said in light of that, he would
withdraw his amendment. He then offered a conceptual amendment
that would give a two year sunset date from the end of this fiscal
year. This would sunset the effect of this prohibition.
"CHAIRMAN PORTER said this would take two cards out of the state's
hand in negotiations, because then they would not be able to say
that we are not going to have this.
"REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said he would not offer the amendment.
"REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked if it would be reasonable to say
January 30 instead of January 1.
"CHAIRMAN PORTER would really resist changing the date at all,
because he did not know much about the bill, since he just got it.
He then said that we have had a motion to move, and asked if there
was any further discussion.
"REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE objected, just for the record, but would not
keep the bill from moving out of committee. That is not an
indication of how he would vote on the floor.
"CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if there was objection to moving the bill.
"REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN objected. A roll call vote was taken.
Representative Finkelstein voted no. Representatives Toohey,
Bunde, Davis, Vezey, Green and Porter voted yes. The bill passed
with a six to one vote.
"The following persons submitted testimony for the record, in
opposition to eliminating monte carlo nights:
Ms. Margaret E, Webber, Anchorage
Susan M. Sullivan, State Director of the Alaska Chapter
of March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation
Joanne Lovitz-Edmiston, Board Member, apparently of a
handicap charity group
Jennifer McGrady, Kenai
Frank Miller, Diamond Rose Bingo Hall for Multiple
Charities Co-op"
EDITORIAL NOTE: This concludes the minutes on HB 327 from the
House Judiciary Committee meeting, dated May 5, 1995.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY mentioned that there were no fiscal notes in
the bill packets.
CHAIRMAN PORTER mentioned that the only fiscal impact from this
bill would be loss of revenue due to the lack of permit fees. He
then asked if there was any further discussion or objection to SB
172. Hearing none, SB 172 passed out of the House Judiciary
Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
The House Judiciary Committee adjourned at 1:56 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|