02/16/2004 01:40 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
February 16, 2004
1:40 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Lesil McGuire, Chair
Representative Tom Anderson, Vice Chair
Representative Jim Holm
Representative Dan Ogg
Representative Ralph Samuels
Representative Les Gara
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Harry Crawford
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 414
"An Act relating to filling the vacancy in the office of United
States senator, and to the definition of 'political party.'"
- MOVED CSHB 414(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 367
"An Act relating to the licensing and regulation of sex-oriented
businesses and sex-oriented business entertainers; relating to
protection of the safety and health of and to education of young
persons who perform in adult entertainment establishments; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 414
SHORT TITLE: U.S.SENATE VACANCY/DEF OF POLITICAL PARTY
SPONSOR(S): JUDICIARY
01/28/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/28/04 (H) STA, JUD
02/03/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/03/04 (H) Heard & Held
02/03/04 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/04/04 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/04/04 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
02/05/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/05/04 (H) Moved CSHB 414(STA) Out of Committee
02/05/04 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/09/04 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/09/04 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed to 2/16/04>
02/12/04 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) 3DP 1DNP 3NR
02/12/04 (H) DP: SEATON, COGHILL, WEYHRAUCH;
02/12/04 (H) DNP: BERKOWITZ; NR: GRUENBERG, HOLM,
02/12/04 (H) LYNN
02/16/04 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 367
SHORT TITLE: LICENSING SEX-ORIENTED BUSINESSES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S): MCGUIRE, GARA
01/12/04 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/04
01/12/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/12/04 (H) L&C, JUD, FIN
01/30/04 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
01/30/04 (H) Heard & Held
01/30/04 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
02/02/04 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
02/02/04 (H) Moved CSHB 367(L&C) Out of Committee
02/02/04 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
02/05/04 (H) L&C RPT CS(L&C) NT 2DP 3NR 2AM
02/05/04 (H) DP: DAHLSTROM, ANDERSON; NR: CRAWFORD,
02/05/04 (H) LYNN, GATTO; AM: ROKEBERG, GUTTENBERG
02/09/04 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/09/04 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed to 2/16/04>
02/16/04 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
DON ROBERTS
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of HB
414 and urged the committee to change the definition of
political party.
KATHY HARTMAN, Owner
Fantasies on 5th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 367.
PAUL HARRIS, Director
Fairbanks Police Department (FPD)
City of Fairbanks
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 367.
JOHNNY RAY KRUSE
Showboat II
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 367, related his
experience at Showboat II.
REGINA MANTEUFEL
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 367, relayed her
personal experience with [sex-oriented businesses] and offered
suggestions in regard to addressing problems [in the industry].
DOUGLAS B. GRIFFIN, Director
Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (ABC Board)
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 367, relayed the
ABC Board's role with sex-oriented establishments.
RAYMOND STEMBA
Fort Wainwright, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As a member of the U.S. Army, testified
that if this legislation is passed it will, [for individuals
between the age of 18 and 21], take away the constitutional
right to freedom of expression.
ANDREE McLEOD
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Suggested that the committee lead the
direction of this legislation to a higher ground by amending HB
367 to refer to adult-entertainment businesses rather sex-
oriented businesses, and suggested that the fiscal note for HB
367 should take into account the probable court challenge.
NANCY WEBB
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 367, relayed her
observations of what occurs in the adult-entertainment business.
SHAWN GRAVELLE
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 367, referred to 18
year olds as adults.
SARA CASTEEL
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 367, discussed
First Amendment rights.
MARCI HALES
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of HB
367, testified.
JOHN FILLMEM (ph)
Showboat Show Club
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that [HB 367] takes away his
right to make a living.
CAROL HARTMAN, Owner
Fantasies on 5th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 367.
AMBER REINHARDT
Showboat Show Club
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion on HB 367, testified that
it is wrong to take away her rights as an adult to do what she
pleases.
CHRIS HUNT
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Related his situation after speaking on HB
367.
JACQUELINE PICKENS
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 367, provided the
committee with an application for employment from Showboat.
TROY LASNETSKE
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 367, noted his
disagreement with the age requirement of 21.
DOUG HARTMAN
Showboat Show Club
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns with HB 367.
JESSICA COX
Showboat Show Club
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns with HB 367.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 04-14, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR LESIL McGUIRE called the House Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:40 p.m. Representatives
McGuire, Anderson, Holm, Ogg, Samuels, Gara, and Gruenberg were
present at the call to order.
HB 414 - U.S.SENATE VACANCY/DEF OF POLITICAL PARTY
Number 0079
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 414, "An Act relating to filling the vacancy
in the office of United States senator, and to the definition of
'political party.'" [Before the committee was CSHB 414(STA).]
CHAIR McGUIRE indicated that HB 414 was engendered by the
overwhelming response to a ballot initiative sponsored by Trust
the People regarding how Alaska fills U.S. Senate seat
vacancies. She noted that over the years, changes have occurred
to how those vacancies are filled; thus "tinkering" with this
process is not unusual. Currently, such vacancies are filled by
appointment, but the ballot initiative seeks to change the
process so that vacancies would be filled via a special
election. She remarked, however, that there are those who
believe that changing how a U.S. Senate seat vacancy is filled
via the initiative process is unconstitutional; thus HB 414
proposes to make the same change via statute instead. The
Seventeenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution governs how such
vacancies are to be filled, and says in part:
When Vacancies happen in the representation of any
State in the Senate, the executive authority of such
State shall issue writs of election to fill such
vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any
State may empower the executive thereof to make
temporary appointments until the people fill the
vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
CHAIR McGUIRE indicated that HB 414 also expands the types of
races that the Division of Elections can look to in order to
ascertain whether a political party enjoys enough popular
support to merit official status. This change is in response to
the court order issued by Judge Reese in the Alaska Superior
Court case, Green Party of Alaska v. State, Division of
Elections. She then noted that the committee would also be
considering amendments to HB 414.
Number 0524
DON ROBERTS said that his greatest criticism of HB 414 pertains
to the definition of political party: He elaborated:
It calls for a party candidate to receive 3 percent of
the vote for governor, U.S. Senator, or U.S.
Representative. I find this to be unacceptable. A
political party is nothing more than an organization
with a particular political agenda. Whether it
[fields] a candidate at all is irrelevant. No party
should be required to field a candidate just to retain
their party status. Also, a vote for a candidate
should not necessarily be considered as support for a
particular party. There are a number of reasons a
person would vote for a candidate, and party support
may not even be a part of that decision.
I'm a registered Democrat and I've, in the past, voted
for Republicans because [of] the individual; I didn't
realize I was supporting the entire Republican
platform. The democratic process amends many
perspectives. Requiring parties to use resources to
field candidates before they're ready to do so could
deprive Alaska of important perspectives. Democracy
is about ideas, ... not people. Political parties
should be free to foster ideas that will contribute to
the political dialogue. I urge the committee to
change the definition of political party to one that
is more befitting of a democratic society. Thank you
very much.
CHAIR McGUIRE, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 414.
Number 0656
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 1,
labeled 23-LS1514\S.5, Kurtz, 2/16/04, which read:
Page 1, line 1, following "filling":
Delete "the"
Insert "a"
CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether there were any objections to
Amendment 1. There being none, Amendment 1 was adopted.
Number 0684
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 2,
labeled 23-LS1514\S.6, Kurtz, 2/16/04, which read:
Page 1, lines 6 - 7:
Delete "secs. 2 - 7 and 9"
Insert "secs. 2 - 8 and 10"
Page 2, following line 2:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 3. AS 15.40 is amended by adding a new
section to read:
Sec. 15.40.145. Temporary appointment of United
States senator. When a vacancy occurs in the office
of United States senator, the governor may appoint a
qualified individual to fill the vacancy temporarily
until the results of the special election called to
fill the vacancy are certified. If a special election
is not called for the reasons set out in AS 15.40.140,
the individual shall fill the vacancy temporarily
until the results of the next general election are
certified."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Number 0710
CHAIR McGUIRE objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered that without Amendment 2, there
will be a period of time, between the time the vacancy occurs
and the time the election is certified, during which Alaska
would not have a U.S. Senator performing his/her duties, and
which could amount to several months. Amendment 2 allows the
governor to appoint someone temporarily to fill the seat, and
that temporary appointment would be terminated at the time the
election results, either special or general, are certified.
CHAIR McGUIRE asked Representative Gruenberg whether he would be
willing to consider amending Amendment 2 by adding, between
"senator" and ",the governor", the words, "at least five days
after the date of the vacancy but within 30 days after the date
of the vacancy". She mentioned that this proposed change to
Amendment 2 was suggested by the lieutenant governor's chief of
staff, Annette Kreitzer, and would serve the purpose of ensuring
conformity with existing law.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would consider that as a
friendly "conceptual" amendment to Amendment 2.
[Although no formal motion was made, Amendment 2 was treated as
amended.]
Number 0894
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that the reason U.S.
Representatives are not included in Amendment 2 [as amended] is
because the U.S. Constitution already provides that a vacancy in
the U.S. House of Representatives can only be filled by
election, not by gubernatorial appointment. He suggested that
the House Judiciary Standing Committee introduce a joint
resolution urging Congress to amend the U.S. Constitution to
allow a temporary vacancy in the U.S. House of Representatives
to be filled in the same manner as is being proposed via
Amendment 2 [as amended] to HB 414. He added that he would be
willing to have a joint resolution to that effect drafted and
brought to the committee for consideration.
CHAIR McGUIRE said she thought that would be a good idea, adding
that the committee could consider that joint resolution at
another time.
CHAIR McGUIRE removed her objection to Amendment 2 [as amended].
REPRESENTATIVE GARA offered his understanding that the
Seventeenth Amendment already provides the governor with the
ability to appoint a temporary replacement to fill a U.S. Senate
seat vacancy.
CHAIR McGUIRE agreed that it does, but suggested that it does
not specifically address special elections. She offered her
belief that the initiative process is not the appropriate method
by which to address this issue; instead, the legislature ought
to address it and do so as clearly and as entirely as possible.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said that although he would not be opposing
Amendment 2 [as amended], he posited that without it, if a
vacancy occurs, the legislature could still grant the governor
the power to fill it. "We can do it more cleanly with this
amendment," he acknowledged.
Number 1196
CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether there were any further objections to
Amendment 2 [as amended]. There being none, Amendment 2 [as
amended] was adopted.
Number 1206
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 3,
labeled 23-LS1514\H.2, Kurtz, 2/4/04, which read:
Page 3, following line 14:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 7. AS 15.45.010 is amended to read:
Sec. 15.45.010. Provision and scope for use of
the initiative. The law-making powers assigned to the
legislature, including the power assigned to the
legislature by the Seventeenth Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States to direct how
vacancies in the United States Senate shall be filled,
may be exercised by the people through the initiative.
However, an initiative may not be proposed to dedicate
revenue, to make or repeal appropriations, to create
courts, to define the jurisdiction of courts or
prescribe their rules, or to enact local or special
legislation."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Number 1226
CHAIR McGUIRE objected.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his belief that both the Alaska
State Constitution and state statutes allow for the initiative
process to change how Alaska fills a vacancy in the U.S. Senate.
He added:
I don't want there to be any legal problem with that
in the future, and [Amendment 3] simply ... makes it
crystal clear that the legislature is allowing the
initiative process to be utilized, under the
Seventeenth Amendment, to direct how vacancies in the
U.S. Senate may be filled, and it makes [it] very,
very clear.
CHAIR McGUIRE said that although she agrees with the concept of
Amendment 3, she would be opposing it. She offered her belief
that even indirectly, a U.S. constitutional provision cannot be
changed by state statute, adding that that is what she believes
Amendment 3 attempts to do even though that may not be intent of
the amendment's sponsor. She opined that the legislature's
power to direct how a vacancy in the U.S. Senate may be filled
is similar to the legislature's power regarding appropriations
in that it is not one that can be given away, and suggested that
the courts might hold the same view.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that the Seventeenth Amendment
allows the legislature to direct the method by which a vacancy
in the U.S. Senate may be filled, and according to a report by
Legislative Legal and Research Services, Wyoming, for example,
has specifically directed its governor to select from a list
proffered by a central committee of the political party to which
the predecessor belonged. Representative Gruenberg noted that
state legislatures have addressed this issue in a variety of
ways, and opined that the only reason the initiative process
couldn't be used would be if state [statute] specifically didn't
allow it. He referred to a U.S. Supreme Court case, California
Democratic Party v. Jones, as an example of the initiative
process making changes to the election process, including U.S.
Senate seat elections.
Number 1547
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that Amendment 3 simply allows the
legislature to delegate to the voters the right, via the
initiative process, to change the method of filling a U.S.
Senate seat vacancy. He opined Amendment 3 meets both the
spirit and the letter of the Seventeenth Amendment because, if
passed, it will allow the people to change the method at the
direction of the legislature via enacted legislation. He also
opined that the argument could be made that voters impliedly
have that power because of language in AS 15.45.010; passing
Amendment 3 merely clarifies the issue. He urged members to
adopt Amendment 3, and relayed that if any forthcoming legal
opinion says that the language of Amendment 3 is
unconstitutional, then he would join with members on the House
floor in removing the language from HB 414.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he supports Amendment 3. "What we
should do is expand the people's right to place initiatives on
the ballot as much as reasonably possible, and [Amendment 3]
does this," he added. He offered his belief that the language
in the Seventeenth Amendment allows the legislature set up the
rules governing the filling of vacancies, and that Amendment 3
in turn merely allows the legislature to set up the rule that
one way of governing how a vacancy is filled is via the
initiative process. He stated: "Representative Gruenberg's
amendment does exactly what the United States Constitution
invites us to do, so really the question here is whether or not
we want to give the people that power ...." He went on to say
that he agrees with Chair McGuire that under current law, those
challenging the initiative might be able to knock the initiative
off the ballot; Amendment 3 would prevent such from occurring in
the future by expanding the people's right to fill vacancies via
direct elections.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS said he disagrees that the Seventeenth
Amendment is inviting the legislature to do as Amendment 3
proposes, adding his opinion that it doesn't say anything
[other] than that the legislature may empower the executive
branch.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG noted that from a historical perspective, in
the original U.S. Constitution, U.S. Senators were not elected -
they were appointed by state legislatures; the amendments to the
U.S. Constitution later allowed U.S. Senators to be elected. He
suggested that the current language in the Seventeenth Amendment
does not address the issue of initiatives, and indicated a
preference for waiting for a legal opinion on this issue before
adopting the language proposed in Amendment 3.
Number 1761
CHAIR McGUIRE opined that when used in the Seventeenth
Amendment, the term, "legislature" does not translate into,
"initiative process", and reiterated her belief that this is a
legislative power that can't be delegated. She remarked,
however, that if a forthcoming legal opinion says that there is
no problem with adding the language proposed in Amendment 3,
then she would be willing to consider a motion on the House
floor. In response to a question, she indicated a preference
for moving the bill from committee today rather than holding it
until a legal opinion is obtained.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in conclusion, opined that nothing in
either the Alaska State Constitution or the U.S. Constitution
prohibits what is being proposed via Amendment 3.
CHAIR McGUIRE reiterated her belief that the term,
"legislature", as used in the Seventeenth Amendment, does not
translate into, "the people through initiative".
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON called the question.
CHAIR McGUIRE asked for wrap-up on the debate.
Number 1962
REPRESENTATIVE GARA opined that in general, it is the House
Judiciary Standing Committee's job to research and analyze legal
issues before moving legislation from committee. In response to
a previous comment, he reiterated his belief that Amendment 3 is
merely responding to the Seventeenth Amendment's invitation for
the legislature to direct the filling of a U.S. Senate seat
vacancy by saying that the legislature has decided that a change
to the process of filling such a vacancy can be done via the
initiative process. If members are concerned that the
initiative changing the current process is unconstitutional,
then the committee should adopt Amendment 3 and thereby clarify
that an initiative of this sort is allowed, he remarked.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS said he still disagrees with
Representative Gara's interpretation of the Seventeenth
Amendment, and opined that the legislature should be very
careful to not view this issue in terms of the current
situation, and should instead consider what will be good public
policy 20 years in the future. He said he viewed the language
in the Seventeenth Amendment as being gray rather than black and
white.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG opined that the Seventeenth Amendment
specifies that the legislature may direct how an election to
fill a vacancy takes place, but not that the method of filling
such a vacancy can be changed via the initiative process. He
noted that California already had an initiative process laid out
in its constitution before the Seventeenth Amendment was
adopted; the fact that the Seventeenth Amendment does not
address that process specifically, he indicated, is perhaps
evidence that it was not meant to be included.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, referring again to the Legislative
Legal and Research Services report, said that what Wyoming has
done is precedent for what he is attempting via Amendment 3,
since - although Wyoming is not specifically using the
initiative process - it is delegating authority to a central
committee of a political party.
CHAIR McGUIRE assured members that an opinion on the issues
raised by Amendment 3 will be forthcoming.
Number 2226
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gara and Gruenberg
voted in favor of Amendment 3. Representatives Ogg, Holm,
Samuels, Anderson, and McGuire voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 3 failed by a vote of 2-5.
Number 2255
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 4,
labeled 23-LS1514\S.1, Kurtz, 2/13/04, which, along with an
added handwritten note, read:
Page 4, following line 7:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 10. The uncodified law of the State of
Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:
CONTINGENT EFFECT. Sections 1 - 7 and 9 of this
Act take effect only if
(1) a substantially similar initiative is
adopted by the voters;
(2) that initiative is subsequently
invalidated by a court in a final judgment that the
federal constitution limits the electorate's ability
to enact an initiative on this subject; and
(3) the time for an appeal of the judgment
has expired or, if an appeal was taken, a final order
on the appeal has been entered invalidating the
initiative.
* Sec. 11. If secs. 1 - 7 and 9 of this Act take
effect, they take effect on the date that the time for
an appeal of a judgment under sec. 10(2) of this Act
has expired or the court order specified in sec. 10(3)
of this Act becomes final."
Note: Section numbers in lines 5 and 12 of this
amendment refer to the State Affairs CS unamended. If
amendments are added, these references may have to be
changed to reflect the new section numbers.
Number 2263
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON objected.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, noting that he is offering Amendment 4
on behalf of himself and Representative Berkowitz, relayed that
Amendment 4 proposes to have certain sections of HB 414 take
effect only if the aforementioned initiative is adopted and then
invalidated by a court and the time for an appeal expires.
Amendment 4 will allow the initiative process to go forward, but
if it is then subsequently invalidated, then the same change to
the method of filling a U.S. Senate seat vacancy would be
created by legislative enactment. Amendment 4 would ensure that
the people are allowed to speak. He went on to say:
The initiative process, I believe ..., has two
benefits. Number one, it allows a bill to be enacted.
But number two, it allows the people to speak. And
there is something to be said [for] allowing the
people the right to express themselves. Even if we
all agree it's a good idea - and I think ... [the vast
majority of legislators] do agree that the substance
of the initiative is a good idea ... - there is
something to be said for allowing the people to be
heard directly.
A lot of time and effort have been put into that
initiative. A lot of people have signed the petition.
A lot of people want to be heard, and they want to
[go] out and vote. And what [HB 414 without Amendment
4] will do is deny them the right to vote on that
initiative. ... If you have an election, and there is
only one person running, we could have, in law, a
provision that says, "Well, that person is elected -
we don't hold the election." But that's not the way
it works because the people have a right to vote. And
the same policy is here; the people deserve the right
to vote.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA, noting that he would not be offering an
amendment that he'd handed out earlier because it proposes the
same change as Amendment 4, relayed that he would be using
discussion on Amendment 4 to speak to the bill because it goes
right to his biggest concern. He then said:
We've all undoubtedly received e-mails from voters who
are concerned about this. If we allow the people's
initiative to go forward, it can't be changed by the
legislature for a minimum period of two years. That's
the beauty of the ... initiative process under our
[Alaska State] Constitution; it says the people are
allowed [to establish a law and the legislature can't
mess with it for two years.] [The preceding bracketed
portion was taken from the Gavel to Gavel recording on
the Internet.]
TAPE 04-14, SIDE B
Number 2395
REPRESENTATIVE GARA continued:
If we pass this bill, it can be changed the day after
we pass [it]. ... The initiative process gives the
people a much greater assurance that their will, will
not be thwarted by the legislature. ... We all want
the people to have the right to demand a direct
election of their own U.S. Senator by the initiative
process. The concern of this bill is that maybe the
people don't have [that] right under the [Alaska
State] Constitution. ... [Amendment 4] says, if the
people do have the right under the [Alaska State]
Constitution - when the courts review this case - then
just leave the initiative on the ballot so the people
can vote; if the courts determine [that] the people
don't have that right, then this bill will go into
effect so that we will still have the right to
directly elect our own U.S. Senators. I can't see a
good reason not to try, to the greatest extent
possible, to allow the people to vote on this
question, and that's what [Amendment 4] does.
There is history, by this body, that feeds into the
public's fear that the ... legislature will not
respect the will of the people through the initiative
process. And I personally believe that happened last
year. The people ... put together a minimum-wage
initiative demanding a fair minimum wage that goes up
with inflation. If that initiative passed, that would
have been law for two years. The legislature knocked
that initiative off the ballot by passing a bill, and
then changed the bill the next year so that the
minimum wage does not go up with inflation any more.
I believe the legislature has thwarted the will of the
voter in the past, and I believe [Amendment 4] makes
sure, to the maximum extent possible, that the
legislature will not thwart the will of the people
again. So I'm going to support it.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS again observed that it is important for
the legislature to consider what will make good public policy
20, 40, 50 years in the future, and remarked that he would be
voting against Amendment 4.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG mentioned that should something happen to one
of Alaska's current U.S. Senators, HB 414 would enact the change
sought by the those sponsoring the initiative sooner than could
the initiative because the initiative won't be voted on before
the next general election.
[Some discussion ensued regarding the bill's effective date and
the time frame in which the Governor has to sign a bill, allow
its passage without his/her signature, or veto it. It was later
determined that bills without a specific effective date become
effective 90 days after becoming law, and that the governor has
15 days during session and 20 during the interim in which to
sign a bill, allow its passage without his/her signature, or
veto it.]
CHAIR McGUIRE said she would not oppose an amendment to add a
specific effective date to HB 414.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA indicated a preference for what Amendment 4
proposes as a possible effective date.
Number 2142
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gara and Gruenberg
voted in favor of Amendment 4. Representatives Holm, Samuels,
Anderson, Ogg, and McGuire voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 4 failed by a vote of 2-5.
Number 2137
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS moved to report CSHB 414(STA), as
amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal note.
Number 2129
REPRESENTATIVE GARA objected for the purpose of discussion. He
said that he has received e-mails indicating to him that some
people believe that there are legislators who won't take this
bill seriously. He noted that during the 22nd legislature,
Representative Berkowitz had introduced legislation similar to
HB 414 but it did not pass; instead, the law was changed to
allow the current governor to select his own replacement.
Therefore, the view of some, he relayed, is that HB 414 will
simply be overturned shortly after passage. He said that if he
had his choice, he would rather let the people pass this change
through the initiative process. He then removed his objection.
Number 2048
CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether there were any further objections to
the motion to report CSHB 414(STA), as amended, out of
committee. There being none, CSHB 414(JUD) was reported from
the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
HB 367 - LICENSING SEX-ORIENTED BUSINESSES
Number 2003
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 367, "An Act relating to the licensing and
regulation of sex-oriented businesses and sex-oriented business
entertainers; relating to protection of the safety and health of
and to education of young persons who perform in adult
entertainment establishments; and providing for an effective
date." [Before the committee was CSHB 367(L&C).]
CHAIR McGUIRE noted that a forthcoming committee substitute (CS)
will be addressing some of the concerns expressed during prior
testimony.
Number 1930
KATHY HARTMAN, Owner, Fantasies on 5th Avenue ("Fantasies"),
said she took exception to the term "sex-oriented business",
stating that she runs an adult-oriented business, and it doesn't
"deal sex." She asked whether HB 367 "constitutes an
unconstitutional prior restraint." She then inquired as to
whether HB 367 unconstitutionally censors adult entertainment
businesses by limiting such businesses to [people] 21 and older.
She asked if the state had conducted a "constitutionally-
sufficient secondary-effects analysis," or conducted any
secondary-effects studies at all. Next she asked whether HB 367
provides an unconstitutionally over-broad definition of sex-
oriented businesses. Lastly, she questioned whether the fiscal
note attached to HB 367 can support a total of six businesses in
Alaska if [the legislature] eliminates 18-, 19-, and 20-year-
olds [from patronizing them], and if those aged people are
eliminated from the establishments, can the fiscal note support
a challenge in the highest level court.
KATHY HARTMAN surmised that legislators have no secondary
effects-studies to rely on, rather they only have testimony and
hearsay so far. She commented that she has studies to refute
any secondary effects that [legislators] think may exist. She
said that secondary effects evidence relied on by supporters of
HB 367 need to be, at a minimum, reasonably believed to be
relevant to the state's alleged secondary effect problems. She
highlighted that in Alameda Books v. City of Los Angeles, the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals questioned an ordinance
prohibiting businesses that enabled both the viewing and
purchasing of adult videos because a secondary effects study
that the City of Los Angeles relied upon wasn't germane. At
this point, she opined, Alaska is at a crossroads with regard to
permanent fund spending and budget issues, and so the state
doesn't need any further cash outlay on unnecessary and
redundant laws.
Number 1830
KATHY HARTMAN informed the committee that she has a license for
premises where minors aren't allowed, and due to its proximity
to a licensed establishment, she has a doorman and security.
Furthermore, all identification is checked at the door, and "no
one under 18 is allowed to enter." Moreover, she said, she has
a long-standing policy not to hire anyone still attending high
school, regardless of that individual's age; "we, as business
owners, would not be adverse to a statute making it ... law not
to hire any high school students." She informed the committee
that she wishes to add on to her existing building, but biased
articles in the newspaper and innuendos have denigrated her in
the community. Therefore, she opined, HB367 can be expected to
"discourage and stymie" her from amassing the necessary
interest, capital, and resources to continue with her plans.
KATHY HARTMAN said, "Banks and investors cannot be expected to
line up to finance a business that may have the potential to be
legislated out of business through shoddy, outdated studies and
outdated ... information." In fact, the Alaska Industrial
Development & Export Authority (AIEDA) has already backed away
from a loan that was in the process. "Government actions are
not allowed to potentially chill protected expression unless the
action is sufficiently justified," she remarked, adding that the
packet she provided to the committee illustrates that her
business complies with all the issues brought forward.
Therefore, if there is a business that isn't in compliance, she
suggested using the statutes that are already in place to bring
that business into compliance. "Do not ask for more laws that
will be just as unenforceable as the current laws seem to be. A
law is only as good as its enforcers," she said.
KATHY HARTMAN said that her business has a good reputation with
all the agencies that she deals with. Furthermore, her
establishment isn't on the restricted list for the military
bases. "Please don't punish a large group of people for the
actions of a few; ... we already comply with all laws on the
books and would not be adverse to a statute stating
unconditionally that no high school person can work in adult-
oriented businesses," she concluded.
Number 1700
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked Kathy Hartman whether her club pays
its employees at least the minimum wage.
KATHY HARTMAN drew attention to the information she provided the
committee, and relayed that it contains her business's W-3
transmittals, which totals almost $500,000 in wages last year.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked whether there are clubs that charge
employees for stage time and don't pay the minimum wage.
KATHY HARTMAN said she couldn't answer that, though there have
been rumors. If such a situation is occurring, however, she
said she questions why the Department of Labor & Workforce
Development isn't addressing it.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA informed Kathy Hartman that [he and Chair
McGuire] are thinking about including a provision that would
require clubs to post the wage and hour rules so that dancers
would know their rights. He asked if she would mind the
aforementioned.
KATHY HARTMAN said that would be fine, adding that she passes
out the "tip booklet" provided by the Internal Revenue Service
(IRS).
Number 1621
REPRESENTATIVE GARA recalled testimony from a dancer at a club
who stated that she has been propositioned by people who lead
prostitution rings. This dancer further stated that she has
been propositioned by folks who want her to sell drugs. He
asked Kathy Hartman whether people are being propositioned like
that in her club.
KATHY HARTMAN responded, "And at the mall at Sears, and at the
mall at [JC] Penny's, and at the Diamond Mall, and at the
Northway Mall - yes, that happens everywhere."
REPRESENTATIVE GARA submitted that he didn't believe such
happens at most jobs where 18-year-olds work. He recalled
testimony from an 18-year-old dancer in high school who stated
that she worked six nights a week, thirteen hours a day. He
asked Kathy Hartman whether she employs anyone in high school
who work such hours.
KATHY HARTMAN answered that she doesn't employ anyone still in
high school.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA further recalled testimony from a dancer who
said that sometimes dancers will be touched or groped without
consent, which results in security escorting the offending
customer from the premises. He asked if that happens at Kathy
Hartman's club.
KATHY HARTMAN replied that such is a possibility, but probably
happens more often at Chilkoot Charlie's than at her
establishment. She noted that she has security people for that.
"What we're doing is dancing as a business, we're not there for
the dating aspect of it like people are in regular bars," she
said.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA recalled Kathy Hartman's assertion that it's
unfair to refer to these businesses as sex-oriented business
because they sell entertainment rather than sex. He mentioned
that a forthcoming committee substitute (CS) will replace the
term "sex-oriented business" with the term "adult-entertainment
business." He also recalled that Kathy Hartman had said that
some clubs will have to close if 18-, 19-, and 20-year-old
patrons aren't allowed. Representative Gara stated that he was
sympathetic to allowing patrons [age 18-20 years of age] and
then just impose regulations with regard to the age of the
entertainers who perform nude.
CHAIR McGUIRE said that her concern lies in her belief that
those ages 18-[20] are still vulnerable, which she attributed as
the reasoning behind making the drinking age 21. Many now
recognize that brain development and maturity occurs later than
was once thought. Chair McGuire commented that these clubs are
obviously moneymakers, otherwise they would be only for those 21
years of age and older.
Number 1367
KATHY HARTMAN interjected that clubs don't need to be [only for
those] 21 years of age and older to make money, adding, "We just
need a place for our young people to go." "They're young adults
and they need to have young adult entertainment," she said. She
turned to the issue of eliminating all military men [from
patronizing these establishments], and acknowledged that the
military doesn't want to have [sex-oriented businesses] on the
bases. However, she opined, the military doesn't have a problem
with military personnel patronizing a club like Fantasies as
long as there aren't any ensuing problems.
CHAIR McGUIRE highlighted that the lowest level of concern given
by the courts is to entertainment. There is no First Amendment
right to entertainment, she emphasized. Therefore, she believes
that that part of the legislation could remain and be upheld.
She said that based on the testimony from young women [in the
sex-oriented businesses], the propensity for dangers [such as
prostitution, drugs, and abuse] is heightened by working in [a
sex-oriented] establishment.
KATHY HARTMAN argued that such is the case only in bad
establishments. She [invited] legislators to come in to her
establishment and get to know her and the dancers so they would
realize that their assumptions are wrong.
Number 1273
CHAIR McGUIRE asked if Kathy Hartman would have a problem with
an hourly closure mandate by the state that would be commiserate
with alcohol establishments. For example, those establishments
that serve alcohol in Anchorage have a time period in which they
close.
KATHY HARTMAN informed the committee that [Fantasies] closes one
hour after the bars close, which provides people time to come
and have a pop and coffee and sober up. She specified that she
would object to an hourly closure mandate.
CHAIR McGUIRE recalled testimony from dancers with regard to the
"bar rush" that occurs after the bars close. She related her
impression that in a place that doesn't serve alcohol, the bar
rush could result in 50 percent of those in the establishment
being intoxicated. The aforementioned is of concern because 18
year olds would be in the presence of others under the influence
of alcohol.
KATHY HARTMAN interjected that if an individual is intoxicated,
he or she shouldn't be on the road. Therefore, the bars should
be responsible for those patrons, she charged.
CHAIR McGUIRE specified that the problem is that [Fantasies, a
club that doesn't sell alcohol] isn't regulated the way in which
a club serving alcohol would be. Although [a club that doesn't
serve alcohol] may have a policy reserving the right to refuse
service to someone who is visibly intoxicated, that club has no
legal obligation to do so.
KATHY HARTMAN disagreed. She explained that under the City of
Anchorage's laws she is mandated by the Alcoholic Beverage
Control Board (ABC Board) [to refuse to serve those who are
visibly intoxicated] because of her establishment's proximity to
an establishment with a liquor license.
CHAIR McGUIRE indicated her understanding that Kathy Hartman was
speaking of her establishment, which has a glass partition
separating [two establishments]. Chair McGuire clarified that
she is speaking of [establishments that aren't similarly
situated]. She expressed the need for Kathy Hartman to keep in
mind that [in making this legislation] she has looked at [these
establishments] statewide. CHAIR McGuire recalled that Kathy
Hartman testified that dancing is a business. With regard to
expressive conduct, she opined that the Barnes v. Glen Theatre,
Inc. case clearly delineates that not all conduct is protected.
Although there may be conduct that stems from one's First
Amendment right, states still have the right to make time,
place, and manner restrictions. Chair McGuire stated that she
views Kathy Hartman's establishment as a business.
Number 1015
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON asked Kathy Hartman whether she believes
there is a difference in maturity between an 18-year-old and a
20-year-old.
KATHY HARTMAN replied yes, adding that there is also a
difference between an someone 18 years old and someone 40 years
old.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON said that the changes [made to the
legislation] in the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee
were based purely on public policy. He asked Kathy Hartman
whether she would agree that dancing is social and whether she
would call it adult entertainment. Representative Anderson
remarked that [HB 367] attempts to be [commiserate] with the age
to drink and gamble, that being 21 years of age.
KATHY HARTMAN inquired, "What's the danger in nudity?"
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON noted that he hasn't seen any letter
from either the Anchorage Cabaret Hotel Restaurant & Retailers
Association (CHARR) or the Alaska CHARR in opposition to the
changes incorporated in [CSHB 367(L&C)]. He requested that
Kathy Hartman inform him if either organization actually
endorses or opposes this legislation, but he urged her to be
careful not to merely mention names [of members of CHARR] who
are against the legislation. He then returned to Kathy
Hartman's earlier comment that the propensity for drug use and
prostitution is no different in [sex-oriented establishments]
than in malls and other establishments. He asked her whether
she really believes that.
KATHY HARTMAN clarified that she's merely said that "it can
happen at the mall." She opined that [drug use and solicitation
for prostitution] could occur more often in a club such as
Chilkoot Charlie's. She likened dancing in [clubs that aren't
strip clubs] to making love with one's clothes on. Furthermore,
in the aforementioned clubs, not many clothes are worn and the
clothes that the patrons do wear are very sexy. "And there is
no control at that point. In my business, I have control. It
makes a big difference," she pointed out.
Number 0767
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON encouraged Kathy Hartman to review the
title of [CSHB 367(L&C)]. He offered his understanding that the
dancers [in sex-oriented establishments] strip naked and pose in
contorted positions, which he interpreted as being sexually
related.
KATHY HARTMAN inquired, "What is sex?" She informed the
committee that the definition of "sex" is procreating.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON commented that he didn't view the title
as being "off." He then turned to the comparisons [between sex-
oriented businesses] and [bars like] Chilkoot Charlie's, and
pointed out that at Chilkoot Charlie's the patrons are 21 years
of age and older as are the employees that may experience
harassment or touching. However, under current law, a dancer in
a club like Fantasies can be 18 years of age and in high school.
KATHY HARTMAN reiterated that she doesn't hire individuals who
are still in high school. She further stated that since
individuals [18 years of age and older] are adults, she
questions why it should be any different than for a 21-year-old.
CHAIR McGUIRE asked if Kathy Hartman allows high school students
that are patrons to enter her establishment.
KATHY HARTMAN replied yes.
Number 0693
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he recognizes that Kathy Hartman isn't
inviting leaders of prostitution rings and drug dealers to come
into her establishment, and that it isn't Kathy Hartman's fault
that such people are coming in. He recalled that in response to
earlier questioning, Kathy Hartman had said that pimps and drug
dealers probably do come in and proposition her employees. He
inquired as to why she would say "probably."
KATHY HARTMAN answered that these people "probably" go into the
grocery store and "probably" have to purchase furniture and
everything else that a normal human would have to do.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked if Kathy Hartman was aware of any
circumstances in which those who run prostitution businesses
have entered [her establishment] and tried to proposition her
employees.
KATHY HARTMAN said that she didn't know because she doesn't work
at night when this [entertainment is offered at her
establishment].
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked if Kathy Hartman had heard of such
from any of her employees.
KATHY HARTMAN responded that she has heard that such types enter
the establishment, but she is well aware of these people who are
supposedly doing this. She highlighted that she employs doormen
to keep these types out of the establishment. However, if a new
pimp enters her establishment, she can't do anything about it.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA expressed concern that 18-year-old women are
in a position in which they could be exposed to propositions by
pimps and drug dealers. He noted that being propositioned to
become a prostitute or deal drugs is a crime, and asked whether,
if the aforementioned happens, does Fantasies have a policy
regarding being propositioned to do a crime.
KATHY HARTMAN clarified that she does have a policy in which the
employee is supposed to immediately approach the waiter,
bartender, or doorman and inform them of the situation. At that
point, the patron is supposed to be [escorted out of the
establishment].
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked, "Shouldn't you also call ... law
enforcement at that point because ..."
KATHY HARTMAN interjected to say that law enforcement isn't
going to do anything. She emphasized that law enforcement
hasn't done one thing about any of the things that people are
saying is happening. "Law enforcement does not enforce the laws
on the books, so why should they enforce any other laws that
you're going to put on the books," she questioned. She
identified one of the big problems is that [this legislation]
will cost a lot and it still won't be enforced.
Number 0504
REPRESENTATIVE GARA surmised, then, that Fantasies has no policy
in which individuals who solicit prostitution or drug dealing
are reported to law enforcement.
KATHY HARTMAN remarked that the police know such types are out
there, and pointed out that on the news recently the police said
they knew where all the gambling joints were. Law enforcement
doesn't do anything until someone "squawks" and puts them in a
bad light on the news, she opined, and [turned to a May 1, 2003,
article in the Anchorage Chronicle] that quotes then-Deputy
Chief, Anchorage Police Department, Bill Miller, as follows:
"We have more crimes in this city than we can investigate;
people are worried about racial profiling, but we have more than
enough work to keep us busy without going around looking for
ways to steal people's civil rights."
REPRESENTATIVE GARA remarked that he would be more comfortable
knowing that there was a policy at Fantasies to report the
person who propositions a dancer for prostitution or drug
dealing.
KATHY HARTMAN said that such could be done, but reiterated that
it wouldn't do any good. She related that she has called the
police when folks have brought their own alcohol into her
establishment and was told there was nothing they could do about
it, and so has dealt with problems internally.
Number 0416
CHAIR McGUIRE indicated agreement with the thought that there
aren't enough [law enforcement personnel] to enforce and
prosecute the ordinances that are already in existence.
Therefore, she offered her belief that there will be benefits to
keeping those age 18 to 20 "out of it." Although she
acknowledged that the same situations could occur when an
individual, at the age of 21, enters one of these clubs, she
surmised that these individuals have a bit more experience.
Chair McGuire recalled the testimony she heard from a dancer who
has danced in every club in Alaska and Washington and who
confirmed that solicitation to become a prostitute, or
solicitation for drugs, or being groped inappropriately happens
all the time. The aforementioned makes her case and enforcement
could only help, she said.
KATHY HARTMAN asked if Chair McGuire ever thought that such a
person brings those type actions on herself. She also asked if
Chair McGuire has reviewed the newspaper with regard to the
drugs, prostitution, et cetera that goes on at the high school.
She said that there is much more danger of such happening at the
high school than at her club. The issues brought up by mothers
from the Parent Teacher Association (PTA) should be directed to
the high school where the problems exist, she opined, and
informed the committee that she has had many people [apply for
employment at her establishment] who have had drug problems in
high school and she has helped them get clean and get back on
the road to educating themselves.
CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether Kathy Hartman was supportive of
keeping the drinking age at 21 or lowering it to 18.
KATHY HARTMAN said she hadn't considered that.
Number 0171
PAUL HARRIS, Director, Fairbanks Police Department (FPD), City
of Fairbanks, announced his support for HB 367. [Sex-oriented
businesses] are an industry that needs to be regulated,
especially under-21 clubs. Currently, in Fairbanks, there is a
club that stays open until 5:00 a.m., and therefore it has
basically become an after-hours club. Mr. Harris informed the
committee that he has documented cases of the sale of drugs, of
solicitation for prostitution, and of intoxicated people on the
premises. Mr. Harris concluded by reiterating his strong
support for the bill, and said his hope is that a good set of
regulations is developed.
CHAIR McGUIRE asked Mr. Harris if he has any evidence that the
sale of drugs or the solicitation of prostitution occurs more
often in [sex-oriented] establishments than it does at [fast
food restaurants] or malls.
MR. HARRIS said that he didn't know that such things occur more
often [in sex-oriented establishments]. He then noted his
disagreement with Kathy Hartman, stating that these are sex-
oriented businesses.
TAPE 04-15, SIDE A
Number 0001
[Recording begins mid speech.]
MR. HARRIS continued, "... drugs and the people that use drugs
that go to ... those locations." Inside the Fairbanks city
limits, a lot of military personnel visit these businesses and
do so after drinking and, thus, they are seeking additional
after-hour action. Mr. Harris related that there have been
several cases in which there has been the sale of drugs near the
premises of these businesses. The difference between these
businesses and a licensed liquor establishment is that there is
no regulation that allows action against the license of one of
these businesses. The license of these businesses never comes
before the "council", and therefore there is no ability to
protest against the license as would be the case for a liquor
license. He pointed out that [the police] do a better job of
policing outside the building of licensed liquor establishments.
Number 0104
CHAIR McGUIRE recalled that a lieutenant from the Anchorage
Police Department was able to do a comparison of the number of
calls made to one of the under-21 clubs in Anchorage. She
recalled that there were 137 calls to those clubs, involving
[the crimes of] kidnapping, assault, drug [use], and
solicitation of prostitution. Chair McGuire requested that Mr.
Harris provide the committee with the number of calls to one or
both of the clubs in Fairbanks.
MR. HARRIS informed the committee that since the club opened on
Fort Wainwright, fewer people have come from Fort Wainwright.
Therefore, the calls and activity at [the establishment within
the Fairbanks city limits] has been lower. Since January 1, the
[police] have only been called to [the establishment within the
Fairbanks city limits] four times, three of which were for
charges of criminal trespass involving drunk individuals who
entered the club and created a disturbance. He reviewed
incidents that were reported from [the establishment within the
Fairbanks city limits] in 2002, which included a welfare check,
intoxicated subjects, drugs, loitering, fighting, and sexual
assault. He relayed that the officers know that that
establishment is a problem location and thus they continually
walk through it. These officers are frustrated because there
isn't much administrative action that can be taken. Mr. Harris
expressed concern with a situation in which the manager isn't
present at the establishment most of the time, and therefore the
manager doesn't know how the business is actually being run,
adding that this is of concern.
Number 0465
JOHNNY RAY KRUSE, Showboat II, informed the committee that each
time an individual is found with alcohol or drugs, he or she is
asked to leave and the alcohol and/or drugs is taken.
Furthermore, the incident is reported to the police. Mr. Kruse
noted that no girls under the age of 18 that are in high school
are hired. In response to Chair McGuire, Mr. Kruse specified
that 18-year-olds are allowed in the club. He noted that most
of the patrons to the club are military personnel.
CHAIR McGUIRE inquired as to how the club uncovers that there
alcohol or drugs are present.
MR. KRUSE explained that [staff] at the [entrance to the club]
search the patrons. Furthermore, there is a large sign at the
front entrance specifying that drugs and alcohol are prohibited.
He said that if someone is soliciting prostitution from one of
the employees of the club in the club, that individual is
requested to leave. Furthermore, if an individual is a [known]
pimp, he requests that that individual leave.
CHAIR McGUIRE inquired as to how many pimps there are.
MR. KRUSE responded that he didn't know because he has only been
[in Fairbanks] for two months. He noted that he was hired [from
a club out of] Texas where the age limit is 18. Furthermore, in
Texas, 18-year-olds and up are allowed to work in a "21 and up"
business.
Number 0684
REPRESENTATIVE GARA inquired as to the number of occurrences
during the two months that Mr. Kruse has worked with the
establishment that pimps have tried to solicit people to work
for them.
MR. KRUSE responded that there have been none. He specified
that there have been two incidents in which people have
propositioned employees of the club for prostitution. In each
of those cases the customer was asked to leave. In order to
clarify how he knows individuals are pimps, Mr. Kruse noted that
sometimes employees of the club or a customer will inform him
that an individual is a pimp. If an individual were to be
identified as a pimp, he relayed that he would confront the
individual and request that the individual leave, but the
aforementioned hasn't happened [since he has been with the
club]. Mr. Kruse maintained that he wasn't aware of pimps
trying to make it into the club to proposition its employees.
In response to Representative Gara's question regarding drugs,
Mr. Kruse specified that stopping drugs at the door has been
highly [successful].
Number 0803
REGINA MANTEUFEL informed the committee that she came to Alaska
at age 22 and has worked at three strip clubs in Anchorage, two
in Fairbanks, and one in Soldotna. She stated that the clubs
boldly violate wage codes, such as those stated in AS 23.10.065
and 8 AAC 15.907. The clubs also boldly violate the "tips law"
found in AS 23.10.065 and 8 AAC 15.907. Ms. Manteufel referred
to the case of Jeffcoat v. State, Department of Labor from which
there was a ruling that stated [employees] cannot be told to
work from 5:00 p.m. to 4:00 a.m. and classified [some
individuals] as contract laborers or independent contractors.
She said that the committee should review the contracts that the
employees of these clubs are made to sign because they are
illegal according to wage and hour codes. She referred to the
"Crazy Horse v. Alaska Wage & Hour" case which addresses
employees of these clubs being required to sell a certain number
of drinks and making commissions off of drinks [sold]. Ms.
Manteufel remarked that [owners of these clubs] operate under
the assumption that if they can get away with it, they will and
thus they take advantage of naive 18-year-olds.
MS. MANTEUFEL said she blamed the "Labor Board" and Grey
Mitchell, Division of Standards and Safety, Department of Labor
& Workforce Development, for not addressing these bold
violations of labor laws. She predicted that the books wouldn't
balance if there was an audit of the clubs in Alaska along with
the employees being questioned separately. Therefore, she
challenged the committee to request that the club owners prove
they are paying minimum wage and not violating the tips law.
Ms. Manteufel commented that not all the girls at these clubs
are having sex, but estimated that at least four [per club] are
prostituting. Therefore, she said she feels that every girl
should be required to have an AIDS test, especially since there
are plans for a gas line which will bring a lot of men [to the
area].
MS. MANTEUFEL expressed concern for the single moms that are
going to be impacted by raising the age limit to 21. She urged
the state to reach out to these [single moms] to provide them a
"next step." She informed the committee that she began changing
when, during a welfare to work meeting, [someone] reached out to
her. With regard to the issue of pimps, she mentioned that
often these individuals stand out from other [patrons]. She
expressed concern with regard to 18-year-old girls dancing naked
after 10:00 p.m. in these clubs. She mentioned the need to
protect these girls.
Number 1273
CHAIR McGUIRE inquired as to Ms. Manteufel's opinion with regard
to the reasons the state should restrict the way in which
dancers between the age of 18 and 21 operate versus those 21 and
older.
MS. MANTEUFEL said that she didn't want the young girls around
blackout drunks. Furthermore, she highlighted the need to have
other career training options, and noted that there are free
workshops available across the state. She suggested that the
legislation contain a "pimp registry" similar to the sex
offender registry, which would make it easier for the doormen to
do their job.
CHAIR McGUIRE asked if Ms. Manteufel felt she would have been
better equipped to make better decisions if she had started
dancing at age 21 rather than at age 18.
MS. MANTEUFEL recalled working at a bar mud wrestling at age 18
where she had a private card that allowed her entrance without
having to show identification. The aforementioned is concerning
with regard to private clubs. Ms. Manteufel opined that 18-
year-old girls shouldn't be doing naked table dances. She
reviewed her own turning point and the difficulty there is in
reprogramming these girls.
CHAIR McGUIRE and REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG thanked Ms. Manteufel
for her testimony.
MS. MANTEUFEL mentioned that she has been threatened [for
speaking in these issues].
CHAIR McGUIRE noted that she shared similar concerns with regard
to [threats]. She mentioned that Senator Fred Dyson has also
spoken about the threats that he and his family have experienced
when he was putting the ordinance in effect that requires
dancers to be 18 years of age, as well as the Anchorage
ordinance requiring dancers to be three feet from the patrons.
In fact, she relayed that one individual has stopped testifying
altogether due to threats, and the Anchorage Police Department
is watching this closely.
MS. MANTEUFEL said that a lot of the concern from club owners
stems centers around the potential cost of making this
[legislation] work. She then pointed out that there is free
AIDS testing statewide as well as workshops and career
counseling available. Moreover, there are self-defense classes
throughout the state.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked that he didn't recall any
witness before this legislative committee or any other committee
ever saying that he or she had been threatened because of
testimony before a committee. Therefore, he requested that any
one who has been threatened to let the committee know because
it's a serious issue and should be reviewed.
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that she and Representative Gara are
keeping close tabs on it.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that if it isn't against the law
to threaten a witness before a legislative committee, it ought
to be.
Number 1680
DOUGLAS B. GRIFFIN, Director, Alcoholic Beverage Control Board
(ABC Board), Department of Public Safety (DPS), said that in
clubs with adult-aged entertainment that hold a liquor license,
there is often reference made to the ABC Board's role. Although
it isn't as extensive an enforcement effort as one would like,
he said he believes it has provided a significant benefit. The
fact that a club has a liquor license seems to provide more
leverage in dealing with any problems. He mentioned that local
governments provide another tool by playing a large role in
regulating establishments that have liquor licenses.
CHAIR McGUIRE offered her recollection of Mr. Griffin's
testimony in the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee
that if dancers under the age of 21 are allowed, or prostitution
solicitations occur, or there are assaults against the women
working, then the establishment's alcohol license will be
pulled. She said that this what has led her to think that adult
entertainment ought to occur only in places where people are
already old enough to drink and where there is a liquor license.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked why the enforcement [of these
establishments] wasn't placed with the ABC Board, opining that
the ABC Board is accustomed to regulating establishments such as
these. He requested that Mr. Griffin and the bill sponsors
think about the aforementioned.
MR. GRIFFIN said that to take on additional responsibilities to
regulate an additional industry would take attention away from
the ABC Board's primary focus, which is alcohol.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted his understanding, but stressed
that someone has to do it. Therefore, he wanted to focus on the
question of whether there is anyone who would be more qualified
than [the ABC Board].
MR. GRIFFIN relayed his understanding that there may be some
type of education or licensing mechanism for individuals, which
is different than the ABC Board's current responsibility with
regard to licensing businesses to hold liquor licenses. He
opined that regulating individuals would be more appropriate for
the Division of Occupational Licensing. Although the ABC Board
has some familiarity with the education process through
monitoring alcohol server training, training individuals and
making them aware of other job opportunities would be a
different aspect for the ABC Board. Mr. Griffin, therefore,
declined taking on this responsibility, although he agreed it's
important, and said he supports regulation in this area.
CHAIR McGUIRE recalled Mr. Griffin's testimony last year
pertaining to the Joint Committee on Legislative Budget and
Audit report. At the time there was debate with regard to
whether the ABC Board would continue to have investigatory
powers. She recalled that it was shown that the ABC Board was
finding instances of prostitution, gambling, et cetera in the
course of its work.
Number 2035
RAYMOND STEMBA, speaking as a soldier with the U.S. Army,
reminded the committee that soldiers are miles from home and for
some it's the first time, particularly those age 18 [to 21].
Furthermore, soldiers aren't very knowledgeable with regard to
places to go downtown. Moreover, many establishments are
restricted to patrons who are age 21 and older due to alcohol
being served on the premises. Local establishments for those
age 18 [to 21] provide good entertainment in a controlled
environment, he opined, and stated that if this legislation is
passed, it will [for individuals between the age of 18 and 21]
take away their constitutional right to freedom of expression,
which grants the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness.
CHAIR McGUIRE thanked Mr. Stemba for serving the country. She
then reiterated that [individuals] don't have a First Amendment
right to entertainment. The First Amendment comes into play for
the dancer and that dancer's perceived right of expression
through dance. Chair McGuire inquired as to the military's
policy with regard to visiting adult-oriented clubs.
MR. STEMBA answered that he has never been informed that he
wasn't allowed to visit such establishments, so long as the
individual maintains a manner becoming of a U.S. soldier. In
further response to Chair McGuire, Mr. Stemba related his belief
that anyone 18 or older should be allowed to work at any place
of business. He highlighted that at age 18 one can legally be
his or her own guardian.
CHAIR McGUIRE asked Mr. Stemba whether he would choose not to go
to an establishment where the women were 21 and older.
Number 2191
MR. STEMBA responded that he is 19 years old and would like to
see someone his own age. In further response to Chair McGuire,
Mr. Stemba said he didn't believe the state's drinking age
should be lowered to age 18 because there are reasons to have
the drinking age at 18. However, he pointed out that these
establishments don't serve alcohol, which takes away the
temptation for younger individuals to indulge in alcohol.
CHAIR McGUIRE asked Mr. Stemba whether he thinks there is any
harm done to dancers between the age of 18 and 21.
MR. STEMBA replied no, specifying, "Everybody is allowed to make
their own decisions and if they choose to go down the wrong
road, it's their prerogative."
CHAIR McGUIRE pointed out, however, that the same argument could
be used to say that someone between the age of 18 and 21 could
make his or her own decision to drink.
MR. STEMBA agreed.
CHAIR McGUIRE explained that she was merely trying to point out
that there are age-related restrictions in place for a variety
of things including tobacco use, alcohol use, and gambling. She
specified that the legislature is not saying that stripping
should be outlawed in Alaska, but rather that a reasonable age
restriction may be in order.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that he wanted to obtain an answer
regarding the military's policy about patronizing adult-oriented
establishments.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA relayed his understanding that there isn't a
prohibition [on patronizing adult-oriented establishments],
though there is a prohibition on the sale of pornographic
material on a military base.
Number 2330
ANDREE McLEOD said that although she is testifying for the
rights of 18-, 19-, and 20-year-old adults, she stressed that in
no way is she [supporting] allowing anyone still attending high
school to work in an adult entertainment establishment. By
using the language "sex-oriented" in the title and throughout HB
367, and by allowing the ensuing public discussion to include
the use of the acronym SOB [sexually-oriented businesses], the
makers of the legislation "are systemically structuring into
this bill a lowering of the substantive nature of the public
debate and enabling other dysfunctions by validating a public
[perception] based on rumors, innuendos ..." [Tape ends mid-
speech.]
TAPE 04-15, SIDE B
Number 2363
MS. McLEOD (indisc.). Ms. McLeod indicated that one
establishment has been damaged, although it followed local laws
and regulations. Therefore, it's absolutely necessary that the
committee lead the direction of this legislation to a higher
ground by amending HB 367 to refer to adult-entertainment
businesses rather sex-oriented businesses. She mentioned the
[alleged threats] that the PTA person initiating HB 367 says
were made.
MS. McLEOD predicted that any law banning 18-, 19-, and 20-year-
olds not attending high school from working in adult-
entertainment establishments would be challenged all the way to
the supreme court. Therefore, she requested that the fiscal
note attached to this legislation include all costs related to a
complete court challenge were this legislation to pass with the
aforementioned ban in place. She remarked that surely Alaskans
wouldn't want the legislature to pass a law that will
appropriate scarce public money and resources on a law that is
constitutionally unstable and expensive. "We've got more
important things to spend our money on than telling adults what
they can and cannot do with their body," she said.
MS. McLEOD summarized by reiterating that it's fitting for this
committee to "bring exactments to HB 367" by amending it to
refer to "adult-entertainment" rather than "sex-oriented" and by
attaching a fiscal note encompassing all cost related to a full
court challenge. "It is just to pass out of this committee a
bill highlighting laws already in existence that help protect
citizens and regulate the industry but [that] does not abridge
the constitutional rights of our Alaskan 18-, 19-, and 20-year-
old adults not attending high school," she said. She concluded,
"Legislators make laws and spend our money; good legislators
make good laws and spend our money wisely."
Number 2268
CHAIR McGUIRE turned to the definition of "sex-oriented
business" [on page 10, lines 6-9 of HB 367] and said that using
that term wasn't meant to imply that anyone appearing nude or
semi-nude was a prostitute. Furthermore, many states refer to
such businesses as sex-oriented businesses while others refer to
it as adult-oriented businesses. Chair McGuire noted that [a
forthcoming] CS replaces the "sex-oriented" language with
"adult-oriented" language because the sponsors don't want to
detract from the purpose of the legislation.
MS. McLEOD relayed her belief that the language change will
raise the level of discussion. She recalled earlier testimony
that there are at least four prostitutes per club and indicated
exasperation that 18-, 19-, and 20-year-olds making an honest
dollar be so maligned. She said she would appreciate this
legislation being raised to a level where verifiable evidence is
submitted and the anecdotes and character assassinations are
removed from the process.
CHAIR McGUIRE mentioned that the debate, in a variety of public
sessions, has been open and honest, adding that people's
concerns have been recognized and that [the committee] hasn't
engaged in the character assassination of any individual. She
explained that [the sponsors] have been presented with evidence
regarding problems that have occurred, and feel that it is
absolutely appropriate that this legislation appear. She also
said that it's appropriate for Ms. McLeod to defend her opinion.
With the exception of the fact that people have been threatened
for testifying, Chair McGuire said that she is pleased with the
legislative process of HB 367.
MS. McLEOD asked if Chair McGuire and Representative Gara
advised those individuals who discussed their victimization to
go to the police and report these incidents.
CHAIR McGUIRE replied no, adding that she didn't think it was
germane because the individuals had been in the industry years
ago. Certainly, going back now and proving such instances of
abuse would be very difficult.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG also noted that the sponsors are in the
process of obtaining another CS that will no longer use the
language, "sex-oriented".
Number 2052
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said that Ms. McLeod is correct about the
terminology, and noted that the first time the issue was raised
[the sponsors] agreed it would be more appropriate to refer to
adult-oriented businesses. Representative Gara highlighted that
none of these issues is clearly black and white. Without
regulation of this [industry], some bad conduct is being left
unregulated, but with regulation, some young folks who do well
with these jobs will be regulated. He recalled hearing from
some young entertainers who led exemplary lives.
MS. McLEOD opined that the cost of a constitutional challenge
would guide where this issue will go, which is why she adamantly
wanted the costs associated with a court challenge to accompany
this legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA, as an example, noted that some businesses
in this state need to be regulated, and to that end, he has
introduced legislation to increase some of the taxes on oil
companies, and if the aforementioned legislation passes, he said
he expected that those in the oil industry would challenge it.
However, he stressed that he couldn't [shy away from] filing
legislation just because a business will challenge it.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked if Ms. McLeod believes the drinking
age should be lowered to age 18.
MS. McLEOD responded that the drinking age isn't the issue
before the committee. She clarified that she isn't requesting
that the committee not pass this legislation because of a
constitutional challenge, but merely that there is need to
include the cost of the constitutional challenge as part of the
fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS pointed out that [society] puts in place
protections for young people. The debate is whether young women
[in adult-oriented businesses] should be protected from an
atmosphere that may not be healthy for them. He said he felt
that the question regarding the drinking age is pertinent
because if one believes adulthood is age 18, then perhaps one
would also be willing to lower other age limits to 18. However,
he said he didn't [accept] the argument that there can't be
different levels of responsibility [for those of different
ages].
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG turned to the fiscal note suggestion
and specified that fiscal notes can't be done based on possible
constitutional challenges that may or may not be filed.
MS. McLEOD asked if that is why there is a severability clause
included.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he couldn't comment on that since
he wasn't involved in drafting the legislation. He pointed out,
though, that a fiscal note can't include [costs] that aren't
fairly certain.
Number 1694
NANCY WEBB informed the committee that she is speaking from the
vantage point of a parent who has raised three children,
including one daughter who was a dancer at the Showboat Show
[club] in Fairbanks. She said that as a result of her
daughter's dancing, she sought to inform herself with regard to
these establishments. As a member of the [Fairbanks North Star
Borough Assembly], Ms. Webb said this issue reminded her of the
debate over the community curfew, which she supported because
she felt that there should be a community standard for those who
aren't mature enough to make the best decisions when out after a
certain hour.
MS. WEBB explained that she went to the club where her daughter
worked and witnessed lap sitting, which is especially lucrative
dancing. Ms. Webb related that there is quite a folklore
regarding the money that can be made in this industry. The
money is the lure because there aren't a lot of options for
young women to earn much money if they aren't on the college
track or already skilled. Furthermore, it's cash in the hand.
Ms. Webb related her observation that many of the dancers who
are often single mothers were from out of state. She recalled
that the clubs even paid for the women to come to Alaska, which
seemed to create an indentured servant situation, and it was her
understanding that the dancers did pay the establishment for the
right to dance. She discussed how the income for dancers varies
and so one [never knows exactly how much money he/she can count
on]. She also noted that some of the dancers were homeless,
appearing to have difficult family circumstances. Ms. Webb
mentioned that there is camaraderie among the dancers as well as
competition. The dancers are a mix of young and old, which she
believes to be part of the problem along with a constantly
changing staff.
Number 1299
MS. WEBB turned to the issue of drugs and relayed that she had
no doubt that the establishments indirectly lead to drug use.
She recalled her visit to the club and noted that she saw three
military guys drinking inside their car before entering the
club. The bouncer acknowledged that the [parking lots] can't
really be patrolled, although the police do the best they can.
She offered her belief that when trying to obtain money for
drugs, young men tend to participate in violent acts whereas
young women tend to participate in acts wherein they are
victimized. If one is a drug addict, one will do a lot of
things to obtain money and dancing offers cash in hand. Ms.
Webb relayed that her daughter is a drug addict, and that
through her daughter and Narcotics Anonymous she has met some of
the older dancers who are also drug addicts.
MS. WEBB turned to the question of who is the clientele and who
are the employees of these businesses. She relayed her
observation that the employees generally start out as unemployed
young women looking for work, young single mothers, drug
addicts, young women with boyfriends who are addicts, or women
on probation with restitution to pay. She remarked that the
young woman who financed her entire college education from
dancing is unusual. The clientele of these businesses are
military men under age 21 and men in town for construction
projects. She agreed with the earlier remark that with a gas
line, [this industry will grow]. Therefore, this is a great
time to put into place what this legislation proposes. Ms. Webb
mentioned her support of the idea of nude dancing [only
occurring] at an establishment that serves alcohol, because this
means that everyone will be 21 years of age and there will be a
liquor license. In conclusion, she remarked that she is very
concerned with those age 16-22.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked Ms. Webb whether she'd heard of there
being propositions for prostitution at these clubs.
MS. WEBB said that it wasn't surprising to any of the
[employees] to be propositioned.
Number 0834
SHAWN GRAVELLE, after noting that he is an employee of
"Fantasies," informed the committee that when he turned 18 the
first thing he had to do was sign up for selective service. He
turned to the earlier question regarding [whether the legal age
for drinking should be lowered] and remarked that [the various
ages at which different things can be done] is age
discrimination, which he said frustrated him. With regard to
this matter, under one proposal, a dancer would have to be 21
years of age, while the patrons could be 18 years of age. He
said that he wouldn't want someone still in high school to enter
an adult-entertainment establishment. However, once that
individual is 18 years old, it should be that individual's
choice.
CHAIR McGUIRE asked Mr. Gravelle if he was referring to an
individual entering one of these establishments as a patron, a
dancer, or both.
MR. GRAVELLE said as a dancer because he/she might still be in
school.
CHAIR McGUIRE inquired as to how one knows if a dancer is in
school or not.
MR. GRAVELLE relayed that on the Fantasies application it asks
if the applicant is in high school. However, he maintained that
he didn't know how one would prove an individual is or is not in
high school. In further response to Chair McGuire, Mr. Gravelle
acknowledged that he was discriminating on the basis of age with
regard to his earlier comment that those in high school
shouldn't be allowed in these establishments.
CHAIR McGUIRE pointed out that when one talks about
discrimination one must talk about similarly situated people.
Therefore, if the age for dancers was 21, it would be that age
for both male and female dancers. If the age restriction for
patrons was 21, then it would be 21 for both male and female
patrons.
MR. GRAVELLE highlighted Chair McGuire's earlier remark that she
didn't have a problem with 21-year-old dancers and 18-year-old
patrons.
CHAIR McGUIRE acknowledged her earlier remark, but added that
she still wasn't sure on that point. She mentioned that there
had been discussion between the sponsors regarding whether to
link these businesses to an alcohol license and require
everyone, patron and employee, to be 21 and older, or whether
there should be a staggered age limit.
MR. GRAVELLE questioned where these 18-to 20-year-olds are going
to go if these "rights" are taken from them. He relayed that
the reason he received a minor consuming at age 19 was because
he had nothing to do and thus he went to a house party. "You
can only stay at home so long; ... I'm 18 years old, I'm an
adult, and I should be able to go out and socialize with my
friends," he said. In further response to Chair McGuire, Mr.
Gravelle specified that he did believe 18-year-olds should be
allowed to drink and smoke.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA remarked that Mr. Gravelle makes some good
points on this difficult issue.
Number 0392
SARA CASTEEL informed the committee that she is 18 years old,
and highlighted that the First Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution guaranteed freedom to life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness. For her, she said, the pursuit of
happiness is her job as an entertainer and so it's a violation
of her constitutional right to take that away. She pointed out
the disparity between being able to be charged [as an adult] at
age 18 while possibly not being able to dance in one of these
establishments. She reiterated that she is an entertainer,
adding that at her job she doesn't sell sex.
Number 0311
MARCI HALES informed the committee that she is 18 years old.
She said, "If you're going to take away my freedom, take away my
responsibility too." She relayed how offended she was when she
first read this legislation as referring to sex-oriented
businesses because, in her opinion, it's just entertainment.
She questioned how dancing entertainment could be linked to a
liquor license. Ms. Hales referred to proposed Sec. 08.90.070
on page 5 of CSHB 367(L&C) and questioned why she should be
required to provide any personal information to newspapers,
radio stations, and television stations as specified in order to
entertain.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA answered that he didn't believe that that
provision is going to be kept in the bill. However, he
explained that the provision was really in response to community
councils which wanted to know if a new strip club is going to
open in the neighborhood. Frankly, he said he didn't believe
there would be any licensing requirements on any of the
employees. Therefore, the new version of the legislation will
probably not contain that language referring to the employees,
although there will be a licensing requirement on the business
itself.
TAPE 04-16, SIDE A
MS. McLEOD, in response to a member's comment, clarified that
she is not a lobbyist.
Number 0057
JOHN FILLMEM (ph), Showboat Show Club ("Showboat"), informed the
committee that he is a doorman and works security for the club.
He recalled earlier testimony regarding the security in the
parking lots of these establishments as well as in these
establishments themselves, and specified that he is hired for
that. He further specified that everyone entering the club is
searched and patted down at the door before being allowed to
enter. Furthermore, it's [security's] job to inspect the
bathrooms and the parking lots on an hourly basis to ensure that
[illegal] activities of concern aren't happening on the
premises.
MR. FILLMEM also informed the committee that he is less than 21
years of age. He opined that [this legislation] takes away his
right to make a living. He related that he attended college at
the University of Minnesota and then returned to Alaska and [his
job at] Showboat has allowed him the opportunity to obtain a
loan to purchase a new vehicle. Mr. Fillmem pointed out that he
is old enough to obtain a federal-funded loan for his
educational expenses, to vote for the leader of this country, to
go to war for this country. "But I'm not allowed to enjoy the
things that should be offered to me as an adult," he said.
MR. FILLMEM noted that he took offense to the earlier comments
that these establishments sell sex because there is no sex in
[Showboat] whatsoever. He specified that none of the dancers or
entertainers, "or anybody else for that matter," have any sexual
contact with any of the clientele of the club. Furthermore,
there are no relationships between employees because that is
strictly against company policy. If the dancers were to have a
relationship with clientele outside the club, the dancers
wouldn't make any money, he opined. Men patronize the club to
have good entertainment, and the [dancers] don't have contact
with the patrons outside the club. Such contact would
jeopardize [the dancer's] safety and, furthermore, the man
wouldn't patronize the club.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked if the entertainers share tips with
Mr. Fillmem, as security personnel.
MR. FILLMEM opined that that isn't the issue. In response to
further questions, Mr. Fillmem stated that he is paid a salary.
He specified that receiving tips from the entertainers isn't a
requirement. However, he noted that on certain occasions he has
received tips from the entertainers because the entertainers
appreciate what [the security personnel] do for the club. It's
the job of the [security personnel] to ensure that [the
entertainers] aren't exposed to "black out drunks" and drunks
from the so-called "bar rush."
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked whether the entertainers have to pay
the owner of Showboat to work there, such as for stage time.
MR. FILLMEM opined that that isn't the issue before the
committee. In further response, he specified that he doesn't
know what other people are paid, and therefore he said he
couldn't comment. He said that he hasn't had discussions with
other employees regarding pay.
Number 0464
CAROL HARTMAN, Owner, Fantasies on 5th Avenue ("Fantasies"),
commented that almost everything she had wanted to address has
already been discussed. She provided the committee with copies
of her establishment's notice to employees regarding the
establishment's insurance and workers' compensation insurance.
She recalled references to short-term staff and businesses
moving around and changing names. She informed the committee
that two-and-a-half years was spent looking for a location that
would comply with zoning ordinance laws. Such a location was
found on 5th Avenue, which is where the establishment has been
for almost five-and-a-half years, and her intention, she said,
is to expand. She pointed out that the committee packet should
include a letter from Safe Harbour Inn that states that
Fantasies is an excellent neighbor with which there have been no
problems.
CAROL HARTMAN informed the committee that she has written a
letter to Walt Monegan, Police Chief, Anchorage Police
Department (APD), requesting crime statistics on five
businesses, both those businesses that serve alcohol and those
that don't, plus the Millennium Club, as well as five bars [that
serve] alcohol. She indicated that she had requested a
comparison study. She offered her belief that the
aforementioned statistics and study will reveal that over the 15
years that Fantasies has been in business, it has had very
little contact with the police. In fact, usually the contact
with the police has been in situations in which the club has
initiated the contact.
CAROL HARTMAN, in response to Chair McGuire, specified that she
had requested a [comparison study] of her club [Fantasies on 5th
Avenue], Teasers, the New (ph), the Showboat, the Bush Company,
Crazy Horse, PJ's, Chilkoot Charlie's, Rum Runners, Al's Place,
515, The Avenue Bar, and The Millennium Club.
Number 0702
CAROL HARTMAN recalled testimony regarding an employee [of a
sex-oriented] business working 13 hours, and stated that she
didn't know of any club that is even open for 13 hours.
Certainly Fantasies isn't open 13 hours. She remarked that her
business could almost run itself. She informed the committee
that she has employed the same two waitresses for 13-14 years.
She further informed the committee that her three sons work at
the business in various positions. She relayed that one of her
employees came to her when she was on probation, was an
alcoholic, and had drug problems. This young woman was
attempting to straighten her life out, but no one would hire
her. She said she was given a job at Fantasies, however, and
has since gotten off drugs and alcohol, and has moved on to work
in the airlines industry.
CAROL HARTMAN turned to the issue of pimps soliciting
prostitution and said that she has seen pimps come in. She
remarked that these people who prey on young people know where
they are allowed and where they aren't. These people know they
aren't allowed in Fantasies.
CHAIR McGUIRE echoed Representative Gara's earlier comment
recognizing that Kathy and Carol Hartman run a very reputable
establishment. The concern is that without any regulation at
all, other [less reputable establishments] have the potential to
bring down the reputation of the Hartmans' club. Chair McGuire
expressed the need to put in place something that sets a general
standard. Where the line is drawn has been the subject of
debate. The fact that the Hartman's club doesn't allow high
school students to be dancers is admirable and something that no
one else has offered to do. She highlighted Ms. Manteufel's
testimony that when a high school student watches a classmate
dance, and then talks about it, it becomes a distraction.
CAROL HARTMAN interjected that this is a business that operates
at night. Therefore, high school students can't work at night
and try to attend school.
Number 1042
CHAIR McGUIRE said she would appreciate the Hartmans, over the
next few weeks, thinking about the policies that they have in
place and things that would raise the entire industry to a
standard that keeps people safe. Chair McGuire acknowledged
that all the problems can't be legislated away, but she
reiterated her concern with regard to young people being exposed
to some of the things that occur in some of these clubs before
achieving the ability to resist those temptations. She
commented that young people have had less life experiences. The
aforementioned is why the age for alcohol has been raised to 21.
CHAIR McGUIRE indicated that although she and Representative
Gara are open to suggestions, they both believe that there
should be regulation. "This bill won't leave without some
licensure requirement of clubs 18 to 21," she stated, and
expressed interest in hearing from [the Hartmans] with regard to
other [provisions] that are included in the legislation. She
then expressed concern with situations in which people who have
been drinking are then going to a [sex-oriented] establishment
after the establishment serving alcohol closes. Some have
referred to this situation as similar to what has been termed an
"after hours" club. She expressed interest in [Carol Hartman's]
thoughts.
CAROL HARTMAN explained that Fantasies and an establishment that
serves alcohol have been separated by a wall for approximately
five years. Therefore, Fantasies is regulated by the ABC Board,
and this results in the establishment being very cautious with
regard to checking identification. However, 10 years prior the
Hartman's establishment was located on International Airport
Road in a strip mall. That establishment allowed those age 18
[and older to patronize] the club and it didn't serve alcohol.
She recalled that the club on International Airport Road never
had a doorman or security guard and never had a problem. She
recalled that only one time had she called the police to remove
someone who was obnoxious and drunk. However, now there are
security guards who patrol the parking lot, the bar, and inside
the establishment, and who are watching the door. Carol Hartman
opined that people are more cautious with regard to drinking
because of current laws.
Number 1286
CHAIR McGUIRE acknowledged the argument that there should be
places where young people can go where alcohol isn't served.
However, the presence and consumption of alcohol is recognized
as being serious enough that the legal age to consume has been
raised to 21 years of age. The alcohol industry is more
regulated than any other, she remarked, and stated her firm
belief in the drinking age being 21 as well as in the regulation
of [the alcohol industry]. She expressed concern with
individuals who have been consuming alcohol entering a [sex-
oriented] business, even if it's only two drinks, because there
is a "whole culture that comes with that." She opined that
current law with regard to alcohol consumption was established
so that those under age 21 would not drink. Therefore, she has
a concern with young people witnessing others under the
influence of alcohol in [establishments] that don't have the
same protections in place [as would an establishment that serves
alcohol]. Chair McGuire offered her belief that being regulated
[as an alcohol establishment], as is the case with Fantasies,
provides a better result.
CAROL HARTMAN opined that the 21-and-over alcohol clubs aren't
any more regulated than her establishment. In fact, some may be
less regulated than her establishment since [Fantasies] imposes
its own regulations. Furthermore, she relayed that she didn't
believe the ABC Board has time [to regulate sex-oriented
businesses]. "And I don't think they go out and regulate them
or check them or do anything any more than they do [with]
anybody else in town," she remarked.
CHAIR McGUIRE recalled testimony given in the House Labor and
Commerce Standing Committee from Douglas Griffin, Director, ABC
Board, who'd relayed that [the ABC Board] had actually pulled
the license of [a sex-oriented business].
Number 1410
REPRESENTATIVE GARA surmised that Carol Hartman sometimes
employs folks who work at other clubs.
CAROL HARTMAN replied yes. In further response to
Representative Gara, she agreed that it would probably be fair
to say that other clubs in town don't follow the same rules that
she imposes at her clubs. She remarked that she believes the
standards at her establishment are probably a lot higher than
most.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked if it would be fair to say that Carol
Hartman has heard from those employees coming from other clubs
that they have worked at clubs where they weren't paid wages and
had to pay for stage time.
CAROL HARTMAN recalled that there was testimony regarding that,
and regarding independent contractors in other clubs. She
further recalled that an action on those issues was being
pursued by an attorney. She clarified that her establishment
has never [worked] with independent contractors because she
understood it to be illegal.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked Carol Hartman whether she has had
conversations with employees who have come from other
establishments where they have been treated as an independent
contractor.
CAROL HARTMAN estimated that she has had [conversations with]
maybe two to three such [employees].
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked Carol Hartman whether she has an
opinion with regard to whether her establishment provides a
safer environment than other establishments in town in terms of
the dancers not being groped or touched.
CAROL HARTMAN answered that she feels her establishment provides
as much safety as it can. She relayed how the club is laid out
and how various staff can see the entire club and how there are
signs posted in the club that specifies that there is to be no
touching. Those who attempt to touch the dancers are [escorted
from the establishment].
Number 1589
REPRESENTATIVE GARA explained that one of the provisions of the
legislation is to ensure that the club is designed such that it
is all open with no private booths. He asked if such would
bother Carol Hartman.
[The response was inaudible.]
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked Carol Hartman whether she would have a
problem with a provision specifying that an adult-oriented
business must have an entrance that isn't shared with other
businesses. He relayed that concerns have been expressed
regarding adult-oriented businesses that share an entrance with
a building in which minor child may enter.
CAROL HARTMAN replied no. She surmised that if the
aforementioned is happening it must be due to an establishment
being grandfathered in before the 1,000-foot zoning law. She
stressed that [new sex-oriented establishments] can't even be
within a 1,000 feet of a residence. She asked if [passage of
such a provision] could change those situations that are
grandfathered in.
CHAIR McGUIRE interjected that state law supercedes [local
ordinances].
CAROL HARTMAN related her belief that it's a good idea [to have
a 1,000-foot restriction].
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed interest in the question of
who is going to enforce this proposal.
CHAIR McGUIRE related that she has thought about creating a
separate position that is solely devoted to [these issues].
CAROL HARTMAN turned to the earlier mentioned matter of those
who have been threatened and harassed [after speaking on this
matter]. She announced, "I just want to guarantee you that it
has nothing to do with us."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked that his comments on the
threats and harassment weren't just related to this legislation.
In the legislative and judicial systems, one must be very
protective of those participating in the process.
CHAIR McGUIRE announced [that after hearing from the remaining
witnesses today] she would close public testimony.
Number 1781
AMBER REINHARDT, Showboat Show Club, began her testimony by
explaining that dancing is a form of art like ballet. She
highlighted that ballet dancers wear tight clothing that one can
almost see through. She reiterated that dancing is an art, and
said that there are no drugs or sex [at her job]. In fact,
those who engage in sex [with clientele] are fired and fined.
She informed the committee that she is dancing because she is in
debt. She characterized it as wrong to take away her rights as
an adult to do what she pleases.
Number 1913
CHRIS HUNT, after noting that he was an employee of Showboat
Show Club, explained how he came to be the disc jockey.
Although he was in high school, he didn't mention that status
because he didn't believe it mattered. Furthermore, he said
that he wasn't asked. Upon mentioning his schooling status at
the meeting held [in Anchorage], he was fired. Mr. Hunt
expressed the desire to protect the rights of those in a similar
situation. He informed the committee that he was trying to
obtain high school credits for work experience. He said that
his high school counselor knew about his job and thought it was
fine. Mr. Hunt pointed out that he is an adult, and he believes
that his position in high school shouldn't dictate the
parameters of his adulthood. Furthermore, he opined that he
should have a right to hold a job and finish his education so
long as the two didn't interfere with each other. He concluded
by saying that he feels singled out.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG encouraged Mr. Hunt to obtain his high
school diploma.
Number 2010
JACQUELINE PICKENS noted that she is providing [the committee]
with an application for an under-21 club so that the committee
can see that the application does ask if the applicant is
attending high school. In response to Chair McGuire, Ms.
Pickens clarified that the application was from "Showboat."
Number 2049
TROY LASNETSKE informed the committee that he is a 27-year-old
patron of [sex-oriented establishments] who is a federal
employee and who is also a member of a respected union. He
noted that he has worked for federal contractors and is enlisted
in the military. He opined that the real question is: when
does a person become an adult with the responsibilities [that
come with it]. He offered his understanding that at the age of
18 one is legally responsible and able to enter into a binding
contract, be tried and charged as an adult, enlist in the
military, obtain a credit card, and sign a lease for property or
an automobile. Therefore, he said he questions why [the
sponsors] feel it necessary to restrict the liberties of an 18-
year-old.
MR. LASNETSKE recalled Officer Harris's testimony regarding the
list of calls for an under-21 establishment. Mr. Lasnetske
pointed out that Officer Harris never mentioned a list of calls
to a similar establishment for those age 21 and over.
Furthermore, he offered his understanding that most of the calls
were initiated by the business. With regard to requiring [sex-
oriented] establishments to close because of a possibility of an
already intoxicated individual entering the premises, he asked
if Denny's would be asked to close for the same reason. "You're
asking them to ... restrict their liberties and the way they do
business based on what somebody else might do," he pointed out,
and opined that such is inappropriate. He said he questions how
one would be expected to run a successful business if there are
restrictions based on hearsay. Mr. Lasnetske concluded by
stating his disagreement with the proposed age restriction.
Number 2241
DOUG HARTMAN, Showboat Show Club, informed the committee that
when, at age 18, he signed up for selective service, he then
realized that he was an adult. He relayed that later on he
joined the military. While a serving in the U.S. Army, he
became a member of the multi-national peacekeeping force, and
served in the Gulf War in 1991. He offered his belief that most
[sex-oriented businesses] support self-regulation. He thanked
[the committee] for making these establishments aware of certain
improvements that could be implemented and which, in some
instances, have already been implemented. Mr. Hartman said, "We
feel that no one should be allowed to work in a cabaret that is
still a student at high school, regardless of age." He
expressed the need to keep adult entertainment in an adult
atmosphere.
MR. HARTMAN informed the committee that employees are now making
discrimination complaints [because] every employee must sign a
new revised application form that specifically asks if the
individual is attending high school. If the individual is found
to have falsified any of the information, that individual may be
terminated. Furthermore, a copy of the employee's
identification will be kept on file, he relayed.
MR. HARTMAN echoed earlier testimony with regard to referring to
these establishments as sex-oriented businesses. He stressed,
"We are not in the business of sex, and that's not what we're
about." Although he applauded the committee's [agreement] to
change the "sex-oriented business" language to "adult-oriented
business", he indicated that the damage had already been done.
He turned to the issue of constitutional rights, civil rights,
and women's rights, which he said were all at stake. "How dare
you step on somebody's right to work when they're 18; it's ...
about choice ...," he charged.
TAPE 04-16, SIDE B
Number 2389
MR. HARTMAN turned to the issue of alcohol, and opined that
personally he wished that alcohol didn't exist. However, he
noted that it wasn't his decision. As an adult, one should be
able to consume alcohol at age 18, he opined.
MR. HARTMAN remarked that women entertainers shouldn't be
singled out in this industry and be required to obtain " career
counseling and self-defense training, and be finger printed.
The latter, he opined, makes these women feel like criminals.
He suggested that the requirements seem to attempt to make [the
women] not available [to work in these establishments], adding
that the allegations of actions that are of concern have been
brought by other people, not employees of these establishments.
MR. HARTMAN emphasized that dancers don't fornicate with
customers because, if they do, they are terminated or arrested.
He acknowledged that there have been problems and that dancers
have been arrested. He emphasized the need for more regulators
and more police officers to help. Mr. Hartman also informed the
committee that voter registration at the club is being
organized. With regard to patting down customers at the door,
he opined that it's not necessary because no drugs or alcohol
are tolerated within the club. In conclusion, he said that
although [Showboat] has both male and female entertainers, it
seems that female entertainers have been targeted by this bill.
Number 2168
JESSICA COX, Showboat Show Club, informed the committee that she
is a 20-year-old mother employed by Showboat, and said she
questions not allowing those between 18-20 to work in or [be a
patron] of an adult-entertainment business, especially since one
is considered to be an adult at age 18. The businesses that
should be shut down are sex-oriented massage parlors and
prostitution houses; if HB 367 is passed, she opined, then adult
bookstores, massage parlors, prostitution houses, and after-
hours businesses should be shut down. She pointed out, however,
that shutting down [sex-oriented] businesses won't stop pimps or
drug dealers from finding prey. For example, she informed the
committee that "we" were approached [about purchasing drugs]
outside "this" building today. Ms. Cox asked if the legislation
allows staff such as waitresses and waiters, "bar backs," and
doormen to be between 18 and 20 years of age.
CHAIR McGUIRE clarified that it depends upon which version the
committee reports out. She explained that if the version
linking the club to an alcohol license is reported out, then
those 18 to 20 years old wouldn't be able to work at the club.
However, the version [requiring] strippers to be 21 years of age
and older doesn't mention bar backs or disc jockeys.
MS. COX informed the committee that she is a waitress, and
therefore if the one version becomes law she will be out of a
job. She inquired as to when individuals do mature, asking if a
22-year-old trying to obtain his/her high school diploma could
go into an [adult] entertainment business.
CHAIR McGUIRE said that Ms. Cox should ask Mr. Hartman that
question because he could explain the policy that the [Showboat]
has now incorporated. Chair McGuire surmised that the concern
is that most individuals attending high school who would be in a
club like these would be 18 years of age rather than 22, adding
that there are problems that arise from a lack of sleep and from
harassment when high school students see a fellow classmate
dancing at one of these clubs.
MS. COX inquired as to what constitutes adulthood.
CHAIR McGUIRE said it varies, and offered her belief that the
legal age for drinking or gambling should be 21 while the legal
age for tobacco use should be 19. With regard to the question
of whether to execute an 18-year-old, Chair McGuire stated that
she didn't agree with that concept. She pointed out that
throughout the nation, there is precedent for setting different
levels of "adulthood" with regard to engaging in specific
activities.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in further response to Ms. Cox, noted
that generally under Alaska State law, one reaches adulthood at
age 18 save for the already mentioned exceptions.
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that public testimony is closed.
[HB 367 was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1953
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 5:49 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|