Legislature(1995 - 1996)

03/29/1995 03:10 PM L&C

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
           HOUSE LABOR & COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE                           
                         March 29, 1995                                        
                           3:10 p.m.                                           
 MEMBERS PRESENT                                                               
 Representative Pete Kott, Chairman                                            
 Representative Norman Rokeberg, Vice Chairman                                 
 Representative Gene Kubina                                                    
 Representative Kim Elton                                                      
 Representative Brian Porter                                                   
 MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                
 Representative Jerry Sanders                                                  
 Representative Beverly Masek                                                  
 OTHER MEMBERS PRESENT                                                         
 Representative Bill Williams                                                  
 COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                            
  HB 168:  "An Act relating to temporary permits for certain                   
           PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE                                             
  HB 224:  "An Act relating to the state plumbing code."                       
           PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE                                             
  HB 251:  "An Act relating to Native corporations."                           
           HEARD AND HELD                                                      
 *HB 263:  "An Act relating to certification of workers who handle             
           hazardous waste; and providing for an effective date."              
           SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                             
 PREVIOUS ACTION                                                               
 BILL:  HB 168                                                               
 SPONSOR(S): HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES                               
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG                  ACTION                                   
 02/08/95       273    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 02/08/95       273    (H)   HES, L&C                                          
 03/07/95              (H)   HES AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 106                       
 03/07/95              (H)   MINUTE(HES)                                       
 03/16/95              (H)   HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106                       
 03/16/95              (H)   MINUTE(HES)                                       
 03/17/95       772    (H)   HES RPT  CS(HES) 5DP                              
 03/17/95       772    (H)   DP: ROKEBERG, G.DAVIS, BUNDE, TOOHEY              
 03/17/95       772    (H)   DP: ROBINSON                                      
 03/17/95       772    (H)   ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DCED)                           
 03/29/95              (H)   L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17                        
 BILL:  HB 224                                                               
 SHORT TITLE: STATE PLUMBING CODE                                              
 SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KOHRING, Green                                  
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG                  ACTION                                   
 03/03/95       564    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 03/03/95       564    (H)   LABOR & COMMERCE                                  
 03/22/95              (H)   L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17                        
 03/22/95              (H)   MINUTE(L&C)                                       
 03/27/95              (H)   L&C AT 05:15 PM CAPITOL 17                        
 03/27/95              (H)   MINUTE(L&C)                                       
 03/29/95              (H)   L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17                        
 BILL:  HB 251                                                               
 SHORT TITLE: NATIVE CORPORATIONS                                              
 SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MOSES, MacLean, Williams                        
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG                  ACTION                                   
 03/15/95       741    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 03/15/95       741    (H)   LABOR & COMMERCE                                  
 03/27/95              (H)   L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17                        
 03/27/95              (H)   MINUTE(L&C)                                       
 03/29/95              (H)   L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17                        
 BILL:  HB 263                                                               
 SHORT TITLE: CERTIF. OF HAZARDOUS WASTE WORKERS                               
 SPONSOR(S): LABOR & COMMERCE                                                  
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG                  ACTION                                   
 03/17/95       778    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 03/17/95       778    (H)   LABOR & COMMERCE, FINANCE                         
 03/29/95              (H)   L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17                        
 WITNESS REGISTER                                                              
 REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA TOOHEY                                                 
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 State Capitol Building, Room 104                                              
 Juneau, AK 99801-1182                                                         
 Telephone:  (907) 465-4919                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Prime sponsor HB 168                                     
 MARY LOU VILANDRE                                                             
 Franks Plumbing, Heating                                                      
   and Sheet Metal                                                             
 803 Halibut Point Road                                                        
 Sitka, AK 99835                                                               
 Telephone:  (907) 747-8086                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 224                                      
 ED FLANAGAN, Assistant Commissioner                                           
 Department of Labor                                                           
 P.O. Box 21149                                                                
 Juneau, AK 99801-1182                                                         
 Telephone:  (907) 4654-2700                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 224                                      
 STEVE SHUTTLEWORTH, Building Official                                         
 City of Fairbanks                                                             
 2588 Riverview Drive                                                          
 Fairbanks, AK 99701                                                           
 Telephone:  (907) 479-4279                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 224                                      
 LARRY LONG, Building Inspector                                                
 City of Fairbanks                                                             
 326 Baranof                                                                   
 Fairbanks, AK 99701                                                           
 Telephone:  (907) 459-6724                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified against HB 224                                 
 REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES                                                
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 State Capitol Building, Room 102                                              
 Juneau, AK 99801-1182                                                         
 Telephone:  (907) 465-3743                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Commented on HB 224                                      
 PAT KNOWLES, Mechanical Administrator                                         
 Owner, Mountain Mechanical                                                    
 8427 Mentra Street                                                            
 Anchorage, AK 99518                                                           
 Telephone:  (907) 344-0700                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in favor of HB 224                             
 MIKE TIBBLES, House Researcher                                                
   to Representative Vic Kohring                                               
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 State Capitol Building, Room 428                                              
 Juneau, AK 99811-1182                                                         
 Telephone:  (907) 465-2186                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 224                                      
 WILLIS KIRKPATRICK, Director                                                  
 Division of Banking, Securities and Corporations                              
 Department of Commerce and Economic Development                               
 P.O. Box 110807                                                               
 Juneau, AK 99811-0807                                                         
 Telephone:  (907) 465-2521                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 251                                      
 SAMMY KALLANDER, Shareholder                                                  
 Cook Inlet Region, Incorporated                                               
 226 South Hoyt Street                                                         
 Anchorage, AK 99508                                                           
 Telephone:  (907) 333-6794                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified against HB 251                                 
 PATRICIA PRINCE, Kodiak Shareholder                                           
 P.O. Box 241201                                                               
 Anchorage, AK 99524                                                           
 Telephone:  (907) 258-0905                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified against HB 251                                 
 MERLIN PRINCE, Shareholder                                                    
 Bristol Bay Native Corporation                                                
 P.O. Box 241201                                                               
 Anchorage, AK 99524                                                           
 Telephone:  (907) 259-0905                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified against HB 251                                 
 ELIZABETH OSKOLOFF, Shareholder                                               
 Cook Inlet Region, Incorporated                                               
 P.O. Box 266                                                                  
 Kenai, AK 99611                                                               
 Telephone:  (907) 283-7748                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified against HB 251                                 
 BOBBIE OSKOLOFF, Shareholder                                                  
   in Ninilchik, and Cook Inlet Region, Incorporated                           
 P.O. Box 266                                                                  
 Kenai, AK 99611                                                               
 Telephone:  (907) 283-7748                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified against HB 251                                 
 STEPHANIE THOMPSON, President                                                 
 Alexander Creek, Incorporated                                                 
 8128 Cranberry                                                                
 Anchorage, AK 99502                                                           
 Telephone:  (907) 243-5428                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified against HB 251                                 
 HAROLD RUDOLPH, Shareholder                                                   
 Cook Inlet Region, Incorporated                                               
 4200 East Fourth Avenue, Room 107                                             
 Anchorage, AK 99508                                                           
 Telephone:  (907) 338-2507                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified against HB 251                                 
 BOB HENDRICKS, Shareholder                                                    
 Chugach Alaska Corporation; and                                               
 President, Native Village Eyak Tribal Council                                 
 P.O. Box 299                                                                  
 Cordova, AK 99574                                                             
 Telephone:  (907) 424-3604                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified against HB 251                                 
 DOROTHY ZURA, Representative                                                  
 Shareholders for Shareholders                                                 
 2140 Lawson Creek                                                             
 Juneau, AK 99824                                                              
 Telephone:  (907) 364-3898                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified against HB 251                                 
 ALMA MCCORMICK, Shareholder                                                   
 Cook Inlet Region, Incorporated                                               
 7220 Huntsman, `E'                                                            
 Anchorage, AK 99508                                                           
 Telephone:  (907) 344-9998                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified against HB 251                                 
 LYNETTE WATSON                                                                
 8220 Spure Street                                                             
 Anchorage, AK 99507                                                           
 Telephone:  (907) 344-8828                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified against HB 251                                 
 JOHNNIE HARRIS, Shareholder                                                   
 Sealaska Native Corporation; and                                              
 Goldbelt Native Corporation                                                   
 5901 East Sixth, Number 337                                                   
 Anchorage, AK 99504                                                           
 Telephone:  (907) 349-1546                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified against HB 251                                 
 JO DENE KERR                                                                  
 P.O. Box 770297                                                               
 Eagle River, AK 99577                                                         
 Telephone:  (907) 694-9058                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified against HB 251                                 
 GLENN KERR, Shareholder                                                       
 Cook Inlet Region, Incorporated                                               
 P.O. Box 770297                                                               
 Eagle River, AK 99577                                                         
 Telephone:  (907)  694-9058                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified against HB 251                                 
 JACQUELINE GUZLIAK, Shareholder                                               
 Sealaska Native Corporation                                                   
 4830 Omega                                                                    
 Anchorage, AK 99511                                                           
 Telephone:  (907) 345-4741                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified against HB 251                                 
 ARCHIE NIELSEN, Shareholder                                                   
 Sealaska Native Corporation; and                                              
 Shee Atika Native Corporation                                                 
 5901 East Sixth, Number 337                                                   
 Anchorage, AK 99504                                                           
 Telephone:  (907) 337-1909                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified against HB 251                                 
 IKE CROPLEY, Shareholder                                                      
 Sealaska Native Corporation; and                                              
 Goldbelt Native Corporation                                                   
 4104 Birch Lane                                                               
 Juneau, AK 99801                                                              
 Telephone:  (907) 789-0858                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified against HB 251                                 
 KATHY POLK, Shareholder                                                       
 Sealaska Native Corporation; and                                              
 Goldbelt Native Corporation                                                   
 P.O. Box 32677                                                                
 Juneau, AK 99803                                                              
 Telephone:  (907) 789-0438                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified against HB 251                                 
 LORETTA WALLIN                                                                
 6023 Chatham Drive                                                            
 Juneau, AK 99                                                                 
 Telephone:  (907) 586-4012                                                    
 POSITIONS STATEMENT:  Testified against HB 251                                
 ACTION NARRATIVE                                                              
 TAPE 95-26, SIDE A                                                            
 Number 000                                                                    
 The House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee was called to order           
 by Representative Pete Kott at 3:10 p.m.  Members present at the              
 call to order were Representatives Kott, Rokeberg, Elton, Porter              
 and James.  Members absent were Representatives Sanders, Masek and            
 CHAIRMAN PETE KOTT stated a that quorum was present.  The order of            
 business would be HB 168, HB 224 and HB 251.  He announced that the           
 meeting was being teleconferenced to Kenai/Soldotna, Fairbanks,               
 Sitka, Cordova, Kodiak, and Anchorage.                                        
 HB 168 - PERMITS FOR NONRESIDENT OPTOMETRISTS                               
 Number 024                                                                    
 HB 168 had made it to Senate Rules in the Eighteenth Legislative              
 Session; however, like a lot of good legislation, it didn't get a             
 chance to be heard.                                                           
 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY gave the following sponsor statement:                   
 "The Alaska Optometric Association (APA) requested the proposal of            
 this bill.  With the passage of this bill, a locum tenens permit              
 may be issued to a non-resident optometrist for the purpose of                
 assisting or substituting for an optometrist licensed under AS                
 "Alaska has a lot of solo practitioners in remote and semi-remote             
 areas of the state.  If the practitioner becomes injured, seriously           
 ill, or must leave temporarily, he presently must close down his              
 clinic.  This can bring a hardship to his patients, especially if             
 the time away extends to several months.                                      
 "Also, outside specialists in subnormal vision, visual therapy,               
 etc., can be scheduled to assist local doctors where specialty care           
 does not now exist."                                                          
 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY commented that Catherine Reardon, with the              
 Division of Occupational Licensing, Department of Commerce and                
 Economic Development, was in attendance to answer specific                    
 questions.  She said one change had been made in the House Health,            
 Education and Social Services (HESS) Committee requesting that the            
 ability to dispense specific medications also travel with the locum           
 tenens permit.                                                                
 Number 068                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked the committee members if they were familiar               
 with HB 168.                                                                  
 Number 070                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG stated he had read it thoroughly,              
 and had also heard HB 168 in HESS.  He recommended that the                   
 committee adopt the committee substitute (CS) for HB 168(HES).                
 Number 074                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER said he was familiar with the bill                
 having heard it last year.  He made a motion to move the CSHB
 168(HES) Version K, with individual recommendations and                       
 accompanying fiscal notes out of the House Labor and Commerce                 
 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there was an objection.  Hearing none,  CSHB
 168(HES), Version K, passed out of the House Labor and Commerce               
 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY thanked the committee for their prompt and              
 efficient service.                                                            
 REPRESENTATIVE GENE KUBINA joined the meeting at 3:12 p.m.                    
 Number 098                                                                    
 HB 224 - STATE PLUMBING CODE                                                
 CHAIRMAN KOTT stated that they would hear a report from the                   
 subcommittee chairman on the status of HB 224, "An Act relating to            
 the state plumbing code."                                                     
 Number 105                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG directed the committee's attention to the             
 working draft CS 9-LSO740/O.  The subcommittee reviewed the CS the            
 previous day.  They have taken the original sponsor's bill and                
 transferred the administration of the Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC)             
 to the Department of Labor (DOL).  In doing so, they also adopted             
 an amendment requested by the City of Fairbanks and the City of               
 Kodiak.  He explained that they felt as an interim measure, they              
 should provide the relief requested from those particular                     
 jurisdictions having fuel oil heated boilers, as opposed to gas               
 fired boilers.                                                                
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the only new addition to the bill was            
 the multiple dual sunset provisions placed in the statute.                    
 Sections 8 and 9 of the working draft CS provides for a two year              
 sunset of the heat exchanger section as well as for the plumbing              
 code adoption.  The intent of the sunset provision was that the               
 committee, as a long range project, would be reviewing the entire             
 building code along with the different circumstances within the               
 state of Alaska.  After reviewing these, it would bring                       
 recommendations for revisions in the administration of the code,              
 with the intent of weaning the administration of the code away from           
 the legislature, if that is found to be the desirable thing to do.            
 He said it is imperative to develop a public process so that local            
 amendments can be put to use on a statewide basis with adequate               
 public review and input.                                                      
 Number 166                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there were any questions.  Hearing none, he            
 said he would entertain a motion.                                             
 Number 171                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER made a motion to adopt the proposed working             
 draft for HB 224, Version O, dated 3-28-95.                                   
 Number 173                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there wan an objection.  Hearing none, CSHB
 224(L&C), Version O, was adopted.  Chairman Kott said he would take           
 testimony via teleconference from Sitka.                                      
 Number 183                                                                    
 testified via teleconference from Sitka.  She inquired if the UPC             
 makes a change, would the legislature automatically adopt the                 
 change without any input.                                                     
 CHAIRMAN KOTT responded that they would revisit the entire code               
 during the interim, at which point they would solicit public input            
 regarding the applicable codes.                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG added that the bill requires the DOL to               
 draft regulations and take public testimony during the interim                
 MS. VILANDRE asked if that would be through the teleconference                
 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked ED FLANAGAN to join the committee at the table.           
 Number 206                                                                    
 that he was not the best witness on this issue.  Generally, when              
 the department adopts regulations, public hearings are held in                
 Fairbanks, Anchorage, and Juneau.  The department also accepts                
 written testimony.  However, he was unclear regarding the                     
 teleconferencing of those meetings.  The issue of whether they                
 would take testimony by phone would be determined pursuant to the             
 Administrative Procedures Act.                                                
 Number 220                                                                    
 MS. VILANDRE stated that Franks Plumbing and Heating does business            
 between Ketchikan and Barrow.  Their business requires them to find           
 a heat transfer medium suitable for 50 degrees to -50.  She doesn't           
 feel the National Code could "hack it for Alaska without some input           
 from the people."                                                             
 Number 223                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG responded that this was why they                      
 incorporated the two year sunset date.  They would have put just              
 one year in, but they wanted sufficient time to review the entire             
 building code system, to allow for greater public input and the               
 creation of local amendments as necessary.                                    
 Number 237                                                                    
 via teleconference from Fairbanks.  He said that Fairbanks had just           
 come on line and he had only received the work draft CS in the past           
 few minutes.  He asked the purpose of the sunset clause.                      
 Number 257                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG explained that the sunset provisions were             
 provided to remind all of them that they would be taking on an                
 interim project to complete the examination of all building codes             
 in the state, including the regulatory scheme and methods by which            
 local amendments could be adopted.  The committee wants to avoid              
 what they were doing here today, which is to adopt a local                    
 amendment at Mr. Shuttleworth's request in the legislative forum,             
 when it should be handled by another forum.                                   
 MR. SHUTTLEWORTH appreciated the intent.  However, as he reads the            
 section, it is a sunset for Subsection C, which is a single wall              
 coil provision.  He reads it as (indiscernible) type of amendment             
 and it seems that it is only attached to the single wall coil.                
 Number 287                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER explained that his belief in suggesting the             
 sunset provision, was that it's not appropriate that the                      
 legislature deal with and revisit the plumbing codes every year, or           
 every time the UPC changes.  He said this would be better for a               
 board or group having more expertise in the area to accomplish that           
 task.  There was a compromise in terms of putting the heat                    
 exchanger language into the statute.  They put it in statute                  
 because they are addressing a specific problem existing now, and              
 they had it sunset, so that by the time it sunsets, regulations               
 will be in place.                                                             
 Number 302                                                                    
 MR. SHUTTLEWORTH said that the reason the City of Fairbanks opposes           
 the amendment is that over the years, the city has not had the best           
 working relationship with DOL.  He pointed out the tremendous                 
 amount of correspondence taking place between the City of Fairbanks           
 and the committee.  He would agree that adopting regulations, and             
 working through the regulatory process, would probably be                     
 appropriate in most cases.  However, because things have not worked           
 out with DOL, they are willing to take their chances with the                 
 MR. SHUTTLEWORTH asked what assurances they would have, after the             
 two year sunset, that the DOL will "nix" the single wall coil and             
 revamp it completely.  His goal was to solve a problem that is real           
 in Fairbanks, not to create a political dilemma or crisis.  He is             
 meeting with the Architects Association on March 30th, and he has             
 verbal assurances they are in support of the single wall coil                 
 amendment.  He told the committee that he had polled the Interior             
 Builders Association, and he said the Mechanical Contractors have             
 voiced their support.  The message is clear that compromise is                
 appropriate, but they are adamantly opposed to the sunset clause.             
 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT voiced that the committee understands the                 
 concerns not only of Fairbanks but of other areas as well.  He said           
 that they will be taking a look at the building code, and if they             
 can't get cooperation, they'll be back two years from now,                    
 addressing the same topic.  He commented that the legislature was             
 under new management and that there seemed to be a good working               
 relationship.  The department has agreed to look hard at the                  
 Number 355                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG wanted to point out the seriousness in                
 which the committee takes the state building code issue.  This                
 particular bill exposed a significant weakness in the regulatory              
 and statutory structure, and if further disclosed weaknesses                  
 concerning the way they are administered in the state.  He said               
 this would be a major interim project for the committee and himself           
 personally.  He pointed out that he has received input from various           
 state building officials, specifically in other large urban areas,            
 indicating disagreement with the amendment.  The committee is                 
 taking a position to support the people in Fairbanks, particularly            
 given the input from Representative Jeannette James.  He asked that           
 any adamant rejection of the sunset clause not cloud the ability of           
 the committee to move the bill through the legislature.                       
 Number 371                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Representative Jeannette James to join them at            
 the table.                                                                    
 Number 380                                                                    
 from Fairbanks via teleconference.  He said he deals every day                
 with the plumbing code.  Public input is great, but if you don't              
 act on it, it's worthless.  In Fairbanks, they have approximately             
 25 amendments to the UPC, which have come from public testimony.              
 He does not believe the state has ever amended the UPC.  Local                
 conditions should dictate when it comes to codes, especially codes            
 written in Southern California.  He can't see the state of Alaska             
 taking on such a project, thinking they can take public input and             
 make a perfect code for the entire state.  He said he's worked with           
 Adell Bacon in committees, and they all understand that there are             
 local conditions that have to be addressed.  If they spend every              
 two years analyzing these, they'll never accomplish anything.                 
 MR. LONG said that 90 percent of the water heated in Fairbanks is             
 heated with single wall coils, including the city's main water                
 system at the treatment plant.  Cooperation and regulations with              
 the DOL will not work.  In his opinion HB 224 "should be flushed."            
 Number 418                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if anyone else wished to testify via                      
 teleconference or in Juneau.  There being no further testimony, he            
 closed public testimony.                                                      
 Number 420                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES noted that she didn't want to be               
 insulting to anyone on the committee, but asked, "If single wall              
 coils are good today, what makes anyone think that in two years               
 they won't be?"  She reiterated that agencies should not be given             
 "carte blanche" authority to write regulations in areas.  Past                
 experience has never been totally successful.  However, she agrees            
 that there are cooperative people in the department today; but,               
 there is no guarantee those same people will be here tomorrow.  She           
 noted the same goes for the legislators at the table.  Someone else           
 may be elected that has no sympathy for the same issues that they             
 do, and these issues ought to be addressed by regulation.                     
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that she is presently trying to get            
 more public input into the regulation process.  The comments they             
 have heard indicates that public input makes no difference.                   
 Historically, it hasn't always made any difference.  She said that            
 the public process in writing regulations in many cases has been a            
 sham because regulations were already written before they ever got            
 to the public process.  Having the whole bill expires in two years            
 might make sense.  However, she doesn't understand the purpose of             
 picking out the single wall issue and have it expire in two years.            
 She realizes that people in Anchorage don't think this is a good              
 idea, but it depends on how you look at things.  The people in                
 Fairbanks must look at this differently, as 90 percent of their               
 water is heated with single wall coils.  She urged the committee to           
 delete the sunset clause.  She appreciates that fact that the                 
 committee will be looking at the building codes, but she disagreed            
 with Representative Porter, who believes that these are issues that           
 should be dealt with in regulation.  She asked who else is                    
 responsible in this state to make laws in this state, but the                 
 legislature.  If we don't want to assume our responsibility for               
 this and want to pass it on to someone else who doesn't have the              
 same obligation to public input that they do, then we are being               
 derelict in their duties."  She requested the deletion of the                 
 clause.  She added that whether they delete it or not, it has                 
 nothing to do with whether or not you can rewrite the code in the             
 next two years.                                                               
 Number 475                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated that he sympathizes with the City of             
 Fairbanks and pointed out that it was not the intent of the sunset            
 to say that in two years, it would drop off and that they expect              
 the code to stay the same.  It takes the Plumbing Code and places             
 it in the same category as all the other building codes that don't            
 have to go through the statutory process for revision.  They do not           
 have the time or expertise to deal with the intricacies of                    
 electrical, plumbing, and various other building codes that exist.            
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER noted that the City of Anchorage uses the               
 Board of Examiners and Appeals that doesn't impact even the                   
 Municipal Assembly.  They recognize that they are not equipped to             
 deal with the levels of professional problems existing in these               
 codes, especially in a state that needs local options.  If they               
 could write a statute, that would allow regionalization for the               
 input of local options that cities could utilize.                             
 CHAIRMAN KOTT stated that PAT KNOWLES had joined the teleconference           
 line from a remote site.                                                      
 Number 503                                                                    
 MECHANICAL, PLUMBING AND HEATING, testified in favor of HB 224.  He           
 explained that double wall heat exchangers were adopted in the UPC            
 because they cannot control the fluid substance that is used to               
 heat the water on the other side of that pipe.  For example, in               
 Anchorage there are four types of anti-freeze available for use in            
 boilers as heat exchanger fluid.  They are;  Polypropylene glycol             
 with corrosion inhibitors; polypropylene glycol without corrosion             
 inhibitors; RV anti-freeze; and, ethylene glycol anti-freeze.  He             
 said the difference between polypropylene glycol with corrosion               
 inhibitors and ethylene glycol is about $6 dollars per gallon.                
 MR. KNOWLES said the beauty of the double wall heat exchanger is              
 the fact that it's vented; so if the coil breaks it squirts the               
 fluid out the bottom.  You know you have a problem before it makes            
 it into your drinking water.  He said this is not an economic                 
 issue, it is a health issue.  He read the following from the UPC,             
 "Frost or Snow Closure.  Where frost or snow closure are likely to            
 occur in locations having minimum design temperatures below zero,             
 then terminal shall be a minimum of two inches in diameter, but in            
 no event smaller than the required pipe.  The change in diameter              
 shall be made inside the building at least one foot below the roof            
 and terminate not less that ten inches above the roof, or as                  
 required by the administrative authority."  They make allowances              
 for specific locations to adjust the code to their needs.  He                 
 reiterated that this is a health issue, not an economic issue.  The           
 single wall heat exchanges were failing in Anchorage because the              
 pipes are sensitive to the velocity of water traveling through                
 them.  If the pump is too big, it moves the water too fast.                   
 Plumbers size their pipes to what the need will be at the other               
 Number 563                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there were questions.  Hearing none, he                
 closed public testimony.                                                      
 Number 568                                                                    
 ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE, PRIME SPONSOR OF HB 224, testified that             
 Mr. Knowles was one of many individuals who had contacted their               
 office with concerns on this specific issue.  They are not                    
 convinced that the single wall exemption would be guaranteed safe             
 in every instance.  He said that you could require propylene glycol           
 in the heat exchanger; however, there is no enforcement mechanism             
 to guarantee that this is what will be used.  His office has had              
 nothing but technical support for the double wall heat exchanger,             
 and the only opposition they have heard is financial in nature.               
 Therefore, the sponsor does not feel that there is sufficient                 
 evidence to warrant the single wall exchanger at this time.                   
 Number 583                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG restated the position of the subcommittee             
 on the appropriateness of this body to look at local amendments to            
 building codes.  The purpose of taking on this major project, is to           
 introduce legislation by next session to correct this problem issue           
 and reform the law.                                                           
 Number 596                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN KOTT observed that they had heard a lot of conflicting               
 testimony, and that there could be strong justification for local             
 Number 610                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that it was a matter of money.                    
 Everything they do is a matter of money.  There is a long list of             
 schools that need help because of code violations.  Code violations           
 are the biggest "make work" and "make work activity" that they have           
 going.  This country has a multi-trillion dollar debt.  This state            
 has a $500 million dollar budget deficit where the legislature must           
 look and see what is financially feasible.  She said that it is not           
 just a safety issue; it's financial, and without any money, there             
 won't be any safety at all.                                                   
 Number 624                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER commented the CS has yet to be adopted.  It             
 recognizes the financial impact and recognizes that they have had             
 conflicting information with balancing safety versus financial                
 considerations.  The compromise is that they will allow single                
 walls to stay in effect for at least two years, and have the option           
 of revisiting the issue then.                                                 
 Number 631                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN KOTT recognized that there was no one on the committee               
 from the Fairbanks area, but that they all appreciate what                    
 Fairbanks has and is currently going through.  He said that it is             
 a real problem that will require a real solution.                             
 Number 635                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG acknowledged that Representative James                
 brought up a good point of looking at the entire scope of things.             
 One of the alternatives they should look at is whether they want to           
 do away with all state building codes.  He said that if they adopt            
 these codes, but there is no local amendments, they may be better             
 off without them.                                                             
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted that Fairbanks should be happy that the            
 single wall coil was incorporated into the bill.  Currently, they             
 are out of compliance.  She said that it puts them in compliance              
 for the next two years, and she understands their frustration with            
 the irresponsiveness of state government.                                     
 TAPE 95-26, SIDE B                                                            
 Number 000                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt the proposed CSHB
 224, working draft, 9-LSO740/0, Banister.                                     
 Number 005                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN KOTT stated there was a motion to move the CSHB 224                  
 Version O.  The committee took a brief at ease.  The CS working               
 draft Version O had been previously adopted.  Chairman Kott stated            
 there was a motion to move CSHB 224, Version O, dated 3-28-95,                
 Banister, from committee with individual recommendations and                  
 accompanying fiscal notes.  He asked for objections.  Hearing none,           
 CSHB 224(L&C) moved out of committee.                                         
 CHAIRMAN KOTT appointed Representative Rokeberg Chairman of the               
 subcommittee that would be looking at the revision of the building            
 codes during the interim.                                                     
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he would take the assignment seriously           
 and willingly.                                                                
 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked which of the remaining bills were going           
 to be heard.                                                                  
 Number 026                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN KOTT answered that they would hold HB 263 until Friday.              
 However, they would hear HB 251.                                              
 Number 040                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA stated he would not be at the meeting on                
 HB 251 - NATIVE CORPORATIONS                                                 
 Number 057                                                                   
 CHAIRMAN KOTT stated that on Monday, March 27th, they had left off            
 with Willis Kirkpatrick, Director, Division of Banking, Securities            
 and Corporations, Department of Commerce and Economic Development.            
 Number 057                                                                    
 stated that he would try to explain why the division was involved             
 with Native proxy matters.  When the Alaska Native Claims Act                 
 (ANCSA) was passed, Congress decided that the Securities and                  
 Exchange Commission (SEC) would not have the expertise and should             
 not have the authority to deal in the internal affairs of the state           
 of Alaska.  The ANCSA corporations were, therefore, exempt from SEC           
 provisions and regulations.  Brown versus Wood was between a Native           
 shareholder and a local land owner in Anchorage who had made a                
 proposition containing misleading information to the corporation.             
 From that case came a requirement by the Division of Banking,                 
 Securities, and Corporations to make a determination as to what was           
 false and misleading, in proxy contests.  The result of this                  
 regulation was oversight in proxy contests and in other matters,              
 before a vote of the corporation.  It took a substantial amount of            
 time to promulgate those regulations, the effort of which is that,            
 in a proxy solicitations, certain criteria must be met.                       
 MR. KIRKPATRICK related a story from a woman who had been employed            
 by a corporation.  She came to him after her employment and said              
 "always remember that your authority in the Native proxy situation            
 was limited to truthfulness."  In other words, the issue is whether           
 statements are true.  The department sees its responsibility in               
 administering proxy regulations, as that of representing all                  
 shareholders.  One of the things he has learned is that the idea of           
 a Native Settlement Claim under the Corporations' point of view, is           
 a test.                                                                       
 MR. KIRKPATRICK told of when he was employed as a Pharmaceutical              
 Manufacturer's Representative.  He traveled in six week cycles, and           
 he happened to be in Klammath Falls, Oregon, when there was a                 
 settlement there.  The first week he was there, the Indian                    
 community was poor.  During the next cycle he saw the distribution            
 of $45,000 to each Indian in that particular settlement.  Congress            
 tried to make provisions for that settlement through a trustee.               
 However, the recipient had rights to his money.  He stated that it            
 was a travesty to come back six weeks after that, and see that the            
 funds were still there, but that there had been a 99 percent                  
 distribution to other people.  When he came to Alaska in 1969,                
 there wasn't anything available for Natives except for what the               
 Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN) was trying to accomplish.  With            
 the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, some 40 million acres were           
 titled, and $900 million was available.  Twenty years later, those            
 assets are still here.  The test is a good test.                              
 MR. KIRKPATRICK said that some shareholders told him they would               
 like a total distribution of their corporations.  Over the last few           
 years, there has been some distribution of assets, but it has not             
 been in the form of dividends.  The corporations are reducing size            
 by partially liquidating.  He said that when you get involved with            
 this type of action, there should be a two-thirds vote of the                 
 shareholders before you start dissolving corporations.  The                   
 majority of the shareholders don't want this.  There are good,                
 honest shareholders that have testified that they have been waiting           
 20 years and haven't seen their distribution, unlike other                    
 corporations.  He stressed that these corporations are still in               
 existence, and the funds are still available and are being                    
 distributed to shareholders.                                                  
 Number 325                                                                    
 MR. KIRKPATRICK stated that the corporations, themselves, are major           
 players in Alaska's economy.  He believes that they should continue           
 to play a major part for their shareholders and others supportive             
 of them.  He feels that all shareholders need to be heard.  Total             
 corporate management is not good.  During the meeting on March                
 27th, there were conflicting statements.  He stressed that                    
 dissidents need to be heard.  With the present posture of HB 251,             
 it could turn off the voice of dissident shareholders entirely.               
 Every dissident party with any strength at all should have at least           
 one member on the board to speak for them.                                    
 MR. KIRKPATRICK said that he has researched corporate law, in                 
 general.  Mr. Huhndorf stated that he couldn't incorporate in                 
 Delaware because of Congress; he's stuck in Alaska.  In Delaware,             
 there aren't any provisions for shareholders to petition for                  
 special meetings.  Most articles of incorporation contain that                
 provision.  Not all corporations want to shut out their                       
 shareholders.  In states that require a certain percentage for                
 shareholders to call special meetings, the lowest percentage is 10            
 percent, the highest 33.5 percent.  Some states only allow this if            
 the articles of incorporation also allow it.  In determining how              
 the concerned or dissident shareholders can be heard, he tried to             
 determine the range of considerations.  Some of the testimony has             
 indicated that the Alaska Business Corporation Code was designed by           
 Professor Dan Fessler, from Stanford.  Professor Fessler counseled            
 the Alaska Code Revision Commission in the adoption of the Alaska             
 Corporation Code.  One of the things they have seen is that                   
 management is under a barrage of shareholder activity, which                  
 probably has a negative effect on the corporation and the majority            
 of the shareholders.  They have taken a look at HB 251 to come up             
 with specific recommendations so they could strike a balance,                 
 allowing the dissidents to be heard, and preventing the rules of              
 the majority from being diluted by the disruptions of their                   
 corporations.  He suggested that under Section 2, page 2, lines 17            
 and 18, the requirement of 25 percent be limited to those                     
 corporations having 500 or fewer shareholders.  For corporations              
 that have over 500 shareholders, 15 percent would be appropriate.             
 The other concerns line 28, page 2, of Section 2, which is the 90             
 day provision.  This provision blocks any basic action concerning             
 larger corporations.  He suggested that this be extended to 120               
 Number 370                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN KOTT restated that they were going to lengthen the window            
 from 90 days to 120 days.  He asked what the current window was.              
 MR. KIRKPATRICK replied that there isn't one.                                 
 Number 375                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented that he wasn't clear if the                 
 Alaska Business Corporations Code had provisions for Native and               
 non-Native Corporations.                                                      
 MR. KIRKPATRICK replied that in Section 900, 45.55 of ACC, there is           
 a body of law that addresses special provisions for ANCSA                     
 Number 386                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if there was a difference between               
 Native and non-Native under the code.                                         
 Number 388                                                                    
 MR. KIRKPATRICK said the he was addressing only those provisions              
 specific to ANCSA corporations.  He did not want to open up Title             
 10, as far as the Corporations Code was concerned.                            
 Number 393                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if there were any time lines with               
 petitions for special hearings in the non-ANCSA corporations.                 
 MR. KIRKPATRICK replied that there is not a time line for people              
 soliciting for special meetings.                                              
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if, under ANCSA, there were none.               
 MR. KIRKPATRICK said that was correct.                                        
 Number 403                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if there were any difference in                 
 percentages between the two bodies of law.                                    
 Number 405                                                                    
 MR. KIRKPATRICK said that the current code for all corporations,              
 including ANCSA, was 10 percent of the existing shareholders.  HB
 251 would change that to 25 percent for ANCSA corporations.  The              
 division was suggesting they leave it at 25 percent for                       
 corporations under 500 shareholders, and change it to 15 percent              
 for ANCSA corporations over 500 shareholders.                                 
 MR. KIRKPATRICK noted that on page 2, line 23, for "prefiling with            
 the corporation," he would suggest that this be made to read, "with           
 the department."  He explained that there is presently a                      
 requirement to prefile solicitations with the department.  When the           
 department receives a pre-filing in relationship to any                       
 corporation, they notify that corporation.                                    
 Number 427                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the Non-Native Alaska Business               
 Corporate Code provided for petitioning if it was only for special            
 Number 430                                                                    
 MR. KIRKPATRICK stated that the word "petition" doesn't exist                 
 in most corporate laws.  However, if 10 percent of the shareholders           
 are required to call a meeting, the only way to legally do this is            
 by petition.  The department has taken that position, because the             
 petition usually results in a vote, that it is a pre-proxy                    
 statement in itself and cannot be false or misleading.  If they               
 find a false or misleading petition, the only remedy is to void               
 proxies.  If they discover false and misleading statements, they              
 make the person who filed the statement issue a correction.                   
 Number 466                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said if a group of shareholders wishes to               
 petition, could they do so with the proxy of members, to constitute           
 their 10 percent.                                                             
 Number 474                                                                    
 MR. KIRKPATRICK responded that theoretically they could start a               
 proxy campaign.  However, a proxy means that you're giving someone            
 the right to vote for you.                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER interjected, "vote for a petition," and then            
 asked, "would you interpret that as a vote?"                                  
 MR. KIRKPATRICK answered yes, any document that would solicit                 
 another person for a vote would fall under proxy regulations.                 
 Physically, it is easier to solicit a petition, whereby eligible              
 shareholders could be recognized by their signatures.                         
 REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS joined the meeting at 4:30 p.m.                  
 MR. KIRKPATRICK addressed the amendments relating to the Alaska               
 Securities Act.  The department would be a "policeman" over the               
 concerns of the dissident shareholders.  When Mr. Huhndorf                    
 testified, he had his lawyer by his side.  When the Native                    
 community gets together to discuss the problems with their                    
 corporations, they may use the word thief or crook, and even                  
 question his heritage and birth right, and these are serious                  
 charges.  Mr. Kirkpatrick said he has concerns with the department            
 having the right to threaten Natives with civil and criminal                  
 penalties.  The Natives do not have the resources to seek legal               
 counsel.  He said incorporating criminal and civil actions into HB
 251 would be extremely disruptive for both the corporations and the           
 dissidents.  He asked that those provisions be omitted.                       
 Number 547                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there was a standardized petition process.             
 For instance, when they talk about penalizing someone through fines           
 and imprisonment, is there some identifying signature as the                  
 sponsor of the petition, and are they regulated.                              
 Number 555                                                                    
 MR. KIRKPATRICK explained that at the top of the petition, there is           
 a statement of what the petition is addressing.  The rest of the              
 page is a lined page with spaces for signatures, names, and                   
 addresses, of the shareholders.  When the required percentage of              
 signatures is reached, they present the petition to the secretary             
 of the corporation, who would then verify those signatures.  The              
 department becomes involved in regards to the statement at the top            
 of the page.                                                                  
 Number 572                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if the individual that collected the signatures           
 and turned them in to the corporation was responsible for any                 
 non-factual information contained on the petition and, therefore,             
 subject to the penalties as stated in HB 251.                                 
 Number 577                                                                    
 MR. KIRKPATRICK replied, not directly.  There is public                       
 communication including charges and counter charges on both sides             
 during any petition drive.  The problem is that the regulations say           
 that if you gather 30 to 35 people together and tell them certain             
 things, in itself is a solicitation.  It is these types of meetings           
 and campaigns that make it difficult to determine what is truthful.           
 The petition is usually straight forward.                                     
 Number 592                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if the person affected by the civil and           
 criminal penalties included anyone who had given misleading or                
 false information to a group of shareholders trying to solicit                
 their votes for petition.                                                     
 Number 595                                                                    
 MR. KIRKPATRICK replied that in certain situations, there could be            
 a solicitation of itself in trying to get the petition or proxy               
 Number 599                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER observed that while attempting to get a                 
 petition signed and filed, there could be one or several                      
 individuals subject to the possibility of fines or criminal charges           
 if they are doing this in a way that violates the statute.                    
 MR. KIRKPATRICK replied absolutely, and stated he couldn't find               
 this in any other state.                                                      
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if the section was aimed at more white            
 collar FCC kinds of activity, as opposed to Native corporations.              
 MR. KIRKPATRICK responded yes.  Under the Alaska Securities Act,              
 they have imposed major fines.  Last year, the department fined               
 Prudential Base $500,000.  They often find people selling                     
 unregistered securities, and impose fines on them.  In regards to             
 shareholders, they recently had a situation with a Cook Inlet,                
 Incorporated (CIRI) shareholder who solicited proxies with                    
 untruths.  They called for a restraining order prior to the filing.           
 The individual acknowledged he had started out in the wrong                   
 Number 620                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if in that case, was there a                      
 requirement that he file that with the department before it hit the           
 MR. KIRKPATRICK responded yes.  However, the individual did not.              
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked for an example in a proxy or petition           
 fight, historically, what type of resources would (indisc.)                   
 MR. KIRKPATRICK said he would never forget the day he appeared                
 before the Senate Finance Committee with a fiscal note of $50,000.            
 When the department was given the remedial responsibility to void             
 proxies, Senator Ferguson said he didn't think it would cost that             
 much money.  They spend a great deal of time with both the                    
 corporations and the dissidents so that... (end of tape)                      
 TAPE 95-27, SIDE A,                                                           
 Number 000                                                                    
 MR. KIRKPATRICK continued... activity around any elections.  The              
 department has tried to figure out the amount of time involved and            
 how to recover that time.  He said they had recovered nothing from            
 Native activities as far as proxy regulations are concerned nor had           
 they asked.  He said that they just haven't found an equitable way            
 to do it.                                                                     
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if there was a provision regarding the            
 restriction of recall petitions if the directors are hired in                 
 certain ways.                                                                 
 MR. KIRKPATRICK stated that on page 2, line 31, Subsection N, the             
 provision of AS 10.06, Section 460 relates that directors can be              
 removed without cause.  HB 251, without this provision. provides              
 that the directors can only be removed with just cause.                       
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if that provision was still in the CS.            
 CHAIRMAN KOTT replied that it was.                                            
 Number 052                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if a corporation had staggered term               
 MR. KIRKPATRICK finished, that a recall of the total board would              
 have to be for total cause.                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if you could recall an individual.                
 MR. KIRKPATRICK said not without cause.                                       
 Number 052                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER concluded that any recall petition would have           
 to be for cause, that includes for one, a number of directors, or             
 all of them.                                                                  
 MR. KIRKPATRICK replied yes.                                                  
 Number 084                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there were further questions for Mr.                   
 Kirkpatrick.  There being none, he stated that they would hold the            
 teleconference lines open for another 30 minutes.  After today's              
 meeting they would close public testimony, and hold a work session            
 on April 5th.  The panel would consist of two board members, one              
 from Sealaska the other from CIRI; two shareholders from any                  
 corporation; Mr. Kirkpatrick from the Department of Commerce and              
 Economic Development; and a representative from the Department of             
 Law.  He said they would not take public testimony at this work               
 session but would sit down and "hammer out the issues."                       
 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked those people who had previously testified on              
 March 27, to yield their testimony to those people who had not yet            
 had the opportunity.                                                          
 Number 134                                                                    
 SAMMY KALLANDER, SHAREHOLDER, CIRI, testified via teleconference              
 from Anchorage, that he was opposed to HB 251.  He said that                  
 shareholders of CIRI had seen their rights taken away.  They would            
 no longer be able to meet (indisc.) with the 25 percent cap.                  
 He urged the committee not to pass HB 251.                                    
 Number 160                                                                    
 PATRICIA PRINCE, KODIAK SHAREHOLDER, testified from Anchorage via             
 teleconference that she was representing 14 relatives holding 1,400           
 shares, not to mention cousins, etc.  She believes that a great               
 majority of Alaska Natives do not fully understand corporate                  
 business, including herself.  She opposes HB 251, and would like to           
 see her people more educated in regard to corporation business.               
 With too much power given to the corporations, a great percentage             
 of shareholders do not know what is transpiring.  HB 251 would                
 hinder shareholders interest in keeping the power theirs.  She                
 asked that the board members and shareholders having conflicts get            
 back to basics and take care of the shareholders.  If the                     
 shareholders don't believe in them, find out what they want and do            
 what they want.  She said if this was true of Roy Huhndorf and                
 white corporate America, she believes that Roy Huhndorf would have            
 been impeached long ago.                                                      
 testified from Anchorage via teleconference that he is opposed to             
 HB 251.                                                                       
 ELIZABETH OSKOLOFF, SHAREHOLDER, CIRI, testified from                         
 Kenai/Soldotna via teleconference.  She told the committee that it            
 was not fair that a corporate leader introduce legislation that               
 would take away the rights of shareholders.  Mr. Huhndorf and                 
 Representative Moses didn't inform them they would be introducing             
 this bill.  HB 251 discriminates against Alaska Natives.  They do             
 not feel they need interference from Mr. Huhndorf and the state.              
 She said some corporations are hypocritical in involving themselves           
 with another corporation's business.  If she were a corporate                 
 leader, maybe this would be a good bill.  However, there are more             
 shareholders than corporate leaders.                                          
 Number 216                                                                    
 Kenai/Soldotna via teleconference.  She pointed out that previously           
 CIRI has asked them to come up with resolutions.  They had hoped              
 everyone would be able to vote on them.  However, CIRI has the                
 option of not printing them.  They did not tell the shareholders              
 they weren't going to abstain from voting on them.  Therefore, the            
 people don't realize this and could not get a majority vote.  She             
 said that they will never be able to propose resolutions if                   
 something important should come up.                                           
 Number 226                                                                    
 testified from Anchorage via teleconference.  She said that she was           
 a good example of how informed Natives are, having just heard of HB
 251 from reading the newspaper.  She read the following statement:            
 "The reason that corporations were established was so the Natives             
 could learn how to manage for themselves; to foster participation.            
 At 10 percent, it gives the memberships the opportunity to come               
 forward, to be able to discuss these matters.  To get 25 percent of           
 membership involved is very difficult to gather, something that               
 high would mean that the issue is a universal problem.  If you                
 raise it to 25 percent, you will cut off participation effectively.           
 What you will get will change the (indisc.) participation,                    
 eliminating participation.  So now you need to decide what the                
 purpose of this legislation is.  If the purpose of it is to                   
 perpetuate management in a proxy, then admit it up front.  If the             
 purpose of the corporation or the legislation is to foster the open           
 discussion consideration, if they want participation by members and           
 if they want it fully, 10 percent is a significant percentage.  I             
 think the nature of this is to bring the matters forward to be able           
 to discuss these matters and issues.  To say that at any time you             
 have 10 percent everyone has to pay a cost of that process, it is             
 the reasonable cost.  Corporations are owned by members equally.              
 Most can spend their money and their own costs that way.  Let us              
 say it is worth it for we want our petition to be acknowledged by             
 the corporation and considered.  So, 10 percent is a good sound               
 Number 270                                                                    
 HAROLD RUDOLPH, SHAREHOLDER, CIRI, testified via teleconference               
 from Kenai/Soldotna, that he had sent new information on a                    
 statement made by the CIRI attorney at the meeting of March 27th.             
 The letter is in reference to the statements made, with documents             
 to support that letter.  He felt the documents should be forwarded            
 to the Law Department.                                                        
 Number 280                                                                    
 is also on the Board of Directors and is President of Native                  
 Village Eyak Tribal Council.  He testified from Cordova, via                  
 teleconference.  He said he is 100 percent opposed to HB 251.                 
 Management at Chugach Alaska had not seen fit to notify the Board             
 of Directors that the bill even existed.  "If you hold Native                 
 shareholders to higher standards than non-Native corporations, it             
 is called racial discrimination.  If anything, the law should be              
 made easier to recall members of the Board of Directors, because              
 there were so many in the past that should have been recalled as              
 well as gone to prison."                                                      
 Number 292                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Mr. Kirkpatrick if there were any ANCSA                   
 provisions which impose special burdens as opposed to benefits.               
 Number 302                                                                    
 MR. KIRKPATRICK responded that one of the reasons that the special            
 section was put in the Corporation Code for ANCSA Corporations, was           
 that in the setting up of corporations, there was a huge amount of            
 assets.  The corporation code addresses dividends.  Under the                 
 Alaska Corporation Code the corporations could not pay anything to            
 shareholders that wasn't out of earnings.  The special section                
 provides for the distribution of certain non-earning types of                 
 accumulation of funds, for example, timber and other resources.               
 Number 318                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN KOTT commented that he thought racial groups could be                
 singled out for benign treatment, but not for special burdens.                
 DOROTHY ZURA, Representative, Shareholders for Shareholders, stood            
 and requested that Mr. Kirkpatrick listen to her comments.  She               
 said to him, "We file everything we put on the street to Banking              
 and Securities, and I want to hand this one to him now before he              
 leaves."  She said, "It had been out and about in Seattle."  She              
 also requested to testify on new issues.                                      
 Number 338                                                                    
 ALMA MCCORMICK, SHAREHOLDER, CIRI, testified from Anchorage via               
 teleconference.  She said that it is not fair for their corporate             
 leaders to work against its shareholders when it is the                       
 shareholders who own the corporations.  She is opposed to HB 251.             
 Number 343                                                                    
 LYNETTE WATSON, MARRIED TO CIRI SHAREHOLDER, testified from                   
 Anchorage via teleconference.  She is opposed to HB 251.  She                 
 attended the CIRI Shareholders meeting last November, at the Hilton           
 Hotel.  She was amazed that the then President Huhndorf "tried to             
 have the microphones turned off and told people to `shut-up.'  She            
 was told by Native shareholders that they had no right to speak.              
 This bill will silence them further.  They have rights just as the            
 citizens of this state and country have rights to talk, disagree              
 and protest when they choose.  They've been treated unfairly for              
 some 20 years."  She asked that people take a trip to Anchorage and           
 see the Rescue Mission on Tudor Road, or the Brother Francis                  
 Shelter on Third Avenue, where natives have no homes and only exist           
 from day to day, in jails or on the streets of Fourth Avenue.  Some           
 are classified as homeless, over 70 percent are at the poverty                
 level.  She doesn't see any of the corporations helping them to get           
 jobs or educating them.  They get dividends, but they don't add up            
 to the paychecks that the board of directors receive.  She wondered           
 how much they bring home along with their yearly bonuses, maybe               
 they need a pay cut.  The Native people have to fight long and hard           
 to receive NOL money.  The corporations can afford to give money to           
 the shareholders even though they are successful in real estate,              
 timber, etc.  She concluded by saying that "our forefathers in the            
 1770s gave us laws, one was the first amendment, the freedom of               
 speech.  Don't take this amendment or any of their other rights               
 away because of one man and his ideas."                                       
 Number 377                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN KOTT stated that he was aware of the facilities in                   
 Anchorage, and was previously employed by General Motors, making              
 one-twentieth of what the board of directors made.                            
 Number 394                                                                    
 GOLDBELT NATIVE CORPORATION, testified from Anchorage via                     
 teleconference, that he had also represented the Anchorage area in            
 dealing with Goldbelt.  He said that he did not like the word                 
 "dissident" in referring to the majority of shareholders.  He said            
 management is not representative of the shareholders.  It is                  
 getting further away from the shareholders owning and running their           
 corporation.  He said "follow the situation with Goldbelt, they               
 were going to win and get the corporation back to the                         
 shareholders."  He said "if you keep taking from them, the only               
 thing left will be management and no shareholders.  Listen to                 
 what's right and do something right for a change."                            
 Number 420                                                                    
 JO DENE KERR, MARRIED TO CIRI SHAREHOLDER, testified from Anchorage           
 via teleconference.  She pointed out that between 1987 and 1993,              
 Mr. Huhndorf received approximately $2.8 million in compensation              
 and bonuses.  There are 15 board members.  Figuring that those                
 board members receive even half as much compensation as Mr.                   
 Huhndorf, would mean that management fees are running 31 percent of           
 what was being distributed to shareholders.  As a group, they are             
 trying to bring the management compensation and bonuses into                  
 acceptable industry standards.  They have not been able to find any           
 government agency to help them accomplish this.  They're not a                
 tribal agency, so the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) cannot help              
 them.  If this legislation were to pass, the shareholders wouldn't            
 be in a financial position to fight this outrageous form of                   
 management abuse.  Shareholders have no recourse except for the               
 special meetings.  If HB 251 passes they will have no voice in                
 their corporations.  Only 50 to 60 percent of the shareholders now            
 vote, if this bill would require 25 percent of the total shares, in           
 reality you'd be asking for 50 percent of the voting body.  She               
 implored the committee to vote against HB 251.                                
 Number 447                                                                    
 GLENN KERR, SHAREHOLDER, CIRI, testified from Anchorage via                   
 teleconference in opposition to HB 251.  He said that the board is            
 there to help run the corporation, the shareholders are there to              
 keep it in a check and balance.  Passage of this bill would take              
 that away from them.                                                          
 Number 459                                                                    
 testifying via teleconference from Anchorage stated that there are            
 two file drawers full of complaints from Sealaska shareholders.               
 She felt that these hearings were not advertised widely enough for            
 the Natives to voice their concerns.  They were never asked what              
 they wanted in 1970 or 1971 either.  She said "Under Due Process 1.           
 Right Privilege Doctrine.  The essence of justice is largely                  
 procedural.  It is procedure that spells much of the difference               
 between rule by law and rule by whim or caprice.  This seems to me            
 by a whim these people are trying to put this through.  Steadfast             
 adherence to strict procedure safeguard is our main assurance that            
 there will be equal justice under law.  Procedural fairness and               
 regularity are the indispensable essence of liberty.  The history             
 of liberty, the constitutional right, has largely been the history            
 of procedural safeguards.  Who's interests are affected?  Almost              
 17,000 Sealaska shareholders plus children.  We've complained to              
 Banking and Securities, in which they say they don't have enough              
 funds to pursue anything.  We now have our complaints before the              
 State Troopers on the last Sealaska election.  I've also challenged           
 the 1992 election because they brought a vote (indisc.) 5:00                  
 deadline.  Our complaints go unheard, the board tells us we are               
 just advisors.  It's our money and we have no control due to the              
 power of our boards haven't hardly a chance.  Therefore, we protest           
 tearing people's lives apart because when we do this, we are                  
 censured and not able to obtain jobs, although qualified and are              
 known as dissidents, even in our own subsidiaries.  By the way,               
 there are more dissidents than there are board members.  We can't             
 use legal services.  Banking and Securities is under funded because           
 the Bush Representative like the sponsor of HB 251 stopped it years           
 ago.  Where are our rights?  Where is our better life?  Our parents           
 and families waited over 23 years for result and everyone treats              
 the so called leaders, elected under their own by-laws, the                   
 absolute leaders.  Now, some of the corporations are under                    
 investigation for several reasons.  Wait until the truth is                   
 revealed before raping us one more time.  Please stay out of this             
 and don't pass this bill which affects 87,000 plus Natives.                   
 MS. GUZLIAK said in closing, according to George Washington in his            
 1790 speech to the Senate, "Where then is the security of your                
 lands.  No state, no person can purchase your lands unless by some            
 public treaty. (indisc.) under the authority of the United States.            
 The general government will never consent to your being defrauded.            
 But it will protect you in all your just rights."  Don't give our             
 boards the authority to continue to do what they have done to us in           
 the past.  We have too much going on right now.  We are worse off             
 than we used to be.  We have a large suicide rate.  We have the               
 most drug, although we are making a change with the sobriety                  
 movement.  We feel that these people don't listen to us.  Let us              
 be.  This happened before with the (indisc) select committee.  The            
 so called leaders, I call them the "Native Mafia" state "You didn't           
 have to be there."  How can we state what's wrong unless we're                
 there.  (indisc.) Sealaska shareholders unofficial news.  I am                
 quoting the laws from special relationship of Alaska Natives from             
 the federal government.  You better take a look at the due process.           
 I know you people are fair and will want to do what's right.                  
 Please stay out of it.  Thank you very much.                                  
 ATIKA NATIVE CORPORATION, testified via teleconference.  He stated            
 that there has been mention of discrimination.  "You're (indisc.)             
 on special elections or within this bill, then you better put the             
 same cap on the south 48 corporations.  We are not exempt from the            
 south 48 corporations.  We are just as equal as they are.  When we            
 talk about monopolizing, this bill would give management total hold           
 power.  We don't like that.  We as individuals own corporations,              
 not management, not special interest groups.  The liability of                
 directors and agents of a corporation under the law is very clear             
 and explicit.  One thing I've heard.  What happens when, with                 
 Johnnie Harris, who someone turned in a proxy that wasn't his?  In            
 the law books it's called (indisc).  If you don't research this,              
 you as well as the people voting or in charge of the elections; as            
 well as the state outfit are liable and can be fined or sent to               
 prison.  We don't like this bill for one simple reason, we as                 
 shareholders have rights.  You're trying to infringe them.  You're            
 trying take them way.  As for time, give us a chance to respond,              
 maybe we can work something out.  As it stands this bill is no                
 good.  Thank you very much."                                                  
 Number 560                                                                    
 DOROTHY ZURA, Representative, Shareholders for Shareholder,                   
 testified that she was a full Tlingit with 125 shares in both                 
 Sealaska and Goldbelt Corporations.  "As it was stated yesterday by           
 lawyers, they said to treat the petitions as proxies.  I'm going to           
 challenge them in their statement that they put an amendment in               
 there that the corporation is going to be liable to mail out 16,500           
 petitions to each shareholder, as they do proxies."  She said the             
 committee was not versed on ANCSA law.  Regarding the 25 percent,             
 the lawyers stated that this provision came from federal statute.             
 She said this was one of the many games played with them.  They               
 treat shareholders on the federal level which is highly                       
 restrictive, and give the board of directors lenient rights as to             
 state law.  "If we're going to play this game, let's go to tribal             
 law, and eliminate and kill the bill right here.  We will see them            
 in tribal courts."  She said this was not a money issue on the                
 shareholders side, rather it was a money issue on the corporations            
 side regarding NOL'S, and their salaries, wages and job security.             
 On the federal level, in order to do petitions it only takes one              
 person to request a special meeting, then there would be no money             
 wasted.  The money isn't wasted on shareholders, it's wasted from             
 the board of directors.  "When we did Goldbelt, the shareholders              
 dug out of their own pockets to fight a fight and we won that                 
 fight."  Ms. Zura said she would like to see a roll call vote on              
 the bill.  She reiterated that this was not a money issue from the            
 shareholders side.  They are only asking for what was theirs over             
 25 years ago.                                                                 
 Number 598                                                                    
 CORPORATION, testified that they were all opposed to HB 251.  When            
 the election in Klawock took place, there was forgery and tampering           
 with proxies.  Mr. Kirkpatrick said the department had no authority           
 to invalidate any election.  Mr. Cropley asked what his office was            
 suppose to do.  There main objective as shareholders is NOLs.  Mr.            
 Cropley gave the following information regarding Sealaska's NOLs:             
 $157 million was written; $13,000 million in interest since 1985;             
 $60 million in permanent fund before NOLs were approved.  He added            
 that 100 percent vote was required by shareholders, and 100 percent           
 was not voted.  That put the amount of money at $230 million, or              
 $14,500 per 100 shares for 15,780 shareholders.  These figures had            
 been taken from Sealaska reports, financial statements, and studies           
 made by a University of Alaska Professor Steven Cope (sp.?),                  
 specializing in Native corporations.  He said that he had submitted           
 this information to the Juneau Empire at which time Sealaska                  
 attorneys wrote him a letter requesting that he cease and desist,             
 to reply and to retract his statements.  He responded to Sealaska             
 by asking that the correct figures be given to him so he could                
 correct this with the Juneau Empire.  To this date, he has not                
 received a response.  "What has happened to the $34 million not               
 accounted for?"                                                               
 TAPE 95-27, SIDE B                                                            
 Number 000                                                                    
 Kirkpatrick had worked with certain individuals in the audience.              
 She was concerned as to how that would sway the committee decision.           
 To have these rights of recall taken away wasn't fair to the                  
 shareholders.  The issue of proxies are important.  Rather than               
 having bills such as this, it would seem that we should be for the            
 benefit and protection of management and the shareholders.  As it             
 currently stands, the corporations are completely protected.  They            
 have "our" money to fight "our" people.  She would recommend that             
 a concerned legislator submit a bill to look at the election rules,           
 to make it fair.  The way the votes are obtained is not fair.                 
 There was no way to prove how many proxies were picked up and not             
 turned in.  The main problem they have with the corporations is in            
 communicating.  At the annual meeting, they have an agenda.  That             
 agenda is usually only to elect the board of directors.  They                 
 establish how things are taken care of.  She added that she is                
 interested in sitting on the panel as one of the shareholders.                
 "Look in your hearts at this bill and put yourself in our place,              
 and respond accordingly."                                                     
 Number 105                                                                    
 LORETTA WALLIN testified before the committee that she was a United           
 States Citizen as well as an Alaskan Citizen.  She has two children           
 not belonging to a corporation other than through her affiliation.            
 She wonders how her children will be able to vote for these                   
 corporations.  In regards to the ANCSA laws, one individual who               
 studied the law for years said that every shareholder had given up            
 between $200,000 to $600,000 to (indisc.) these corporations that             
 exist today.  She is wondering what the legislature's jurisdiction            
 was in the matter.  ANCSA was created because of the uniqueness of            
 the Native people.  "Now they're trying to bring in the state                 
 policies, it's kind of scary.  They are trying to get our people to           
 believe that your policies and your laws overdo ours.  Which is not           
 true, not when you look into ANCSA."  This was made clear by Mr.              
 Kirkpatrick.  He has no jurisdiction other than with proxies.  She            
 was concerned with lines 17 and 18, requiring 25 percent of the               
 shareholders for corporations under 500, and 15 percent of the                
 shareholders for corporations over 500.  It's at 10 percent and               
 should remain that way.  The 90 days filing deadline should be                
 deleted and left at no limit.  Ms. Wallin referred to page 2, line            
 31, provision M, regarding cause in eliminating the board of                  
 directors and asked who is going to justify that cause.  "The                 
 shareholders?  You? Banking and Securities?  Many of the                      
 corporations say this has to do with money.  I worry about the                
 children, if not that, the elders that are alive today.  Their                
 dream was to see us being able to get something out of the                    
 corporations, and what have they gotten today?  Probably nothing,             
 not compared to what they've given up.  Even an education for                 
 myself, most of my funds have come from the State of Alaska loans,            
 not my corporations."                                                         
 Number 214                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN KOTT commented that ANCSA specifically allows for state              
 jurisdictions, with some exceptions.  We are not completely removed           
 from ANCSA provisions.                                                        
 MS. WALLIN thought the only jurisdiction the state had was with               
 banking and securities.                                                       
 CHAIRMAN KOTT said the corporations are also included in that                 
 exception.  The meeting on Wednesday will consist of questions,               
 directed toward the panel, to determine the underlying problem.               
 The committee could pursue some direction as far as the solution              
 goes.  He told the public that any questions they would like asked            
 of the panel could be directed through one of the committee                   
 members.  There would be no public testimony.                                 
 Number 260                                                                    
 There being no further business to come before the House Labor and            
 Commerce Committee, Chairman Kott adjourned at 5:45 p.m.                      

Document Name Date/Time Subjects