Legislature(1993 - 1994)
04/14/1993 08:00 AM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 14, 1993
8:00 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Williams, Chairman
Representative Bill Hudson, Vice Chairman
Representative Con Bunde
Representative Pat Carney
Representative Joe Green
Representative Eldon Mulder
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative John Davies
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Eldon Mulder
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Carl Moses
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HB 230: "An Act relating to fees for commercial fishing
licenses and permits."
ADOPTED CSHB 230 (RES) AND PASSED FROM COMMITTEE
WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION
Board of Game Confirmations:
A. Ruggles, R. Huntington, S. Entsminger, J.
Didrickson, E. Polley
ALL NAMES ADVANCED WITH INDIVIDUAL RECOMMENDATIONS
WITH COMMITTEE REPORT AND LETTER OF EXPLANATION
WITNESS REGISTER
Representative Carl Moses
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 204
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Phone: 465-4451
Position Statement: Prime Sponsor, HB 230
Frank Homan, Commissioner
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
8800 Glacier Highway, Suite 109
Juneau, Alaska 99801-8079
Phone: 789-6160
Position Statement: Responded to license term question on HB
230
Jerry Luckhaupt, Attorney
Legislative Affairs Agency
Division of Legal Services
130 Seward Street, Suite 409
Juneau, Alaska 99801-2105
Phone: 465-2450
Position Statement: Responded to questions on legal aspects
of appointments to the Board of Game
Marjorie Odlund
Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99801-0300
Phone: 465-3600
Position Statement: Responded to questions on legal aspects
of appointments to the Board of Game
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 230
SHORT TITLE: VESSEL FEES
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MOSES
TITLE: "An Act relating to fees for commercial fishing
licenses and permits."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/15/93 649 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
03/15/93 649 (H) FISHERIES, RESOURCES, FINANCE
03/26/93 (H) FSH AT 08:30 AM CAPITOL 17
03/26/93 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
04/02/93 957 (H) FSH RPT CS(FSH) NEW TITLE 1DP
2NR
04/02/93 958 (H) DP: MOSES
04/02/93 958 (H) NR: PHILLIPS, OLBERG
04/02/93 958 (H) -FISCAL NOTE (F&G) 4/2/93
04/02/93 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
04/14/93 (H) RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 93-44, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Resources Committee was called to order by
Chairman Bill Williams at 8:25 a.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Williams, Hudson, Bunde,
Carney, Green, and Finkelstein. Members absent were
Representatives Davies, James and Mulder.
CHAIRMAN BILL WILLIAMS announced the order of the meeting,
with consideration of HB 230 first, followed by action on
the confirmation of appointees to the Board of Game.
HB 230: VESSEL FEES
REPRESENTATIVE CARL MOSES, PRIME SPONSOR OF HB 230, told the
committee that the fee structure for commercial fishing
vessels proposed in the legislation was intended to make the
fees equitable. He explained that currently, a flat $20 fee
is charged for all vessels without regard to vessel size.
The House Special Committee on Fisheries' substitute for HB
230 (CSHB 230 (FSH)) proposes a sliding fee scale, based on
the length of the vessel, so that larger boats would be
charged a higher fee, he informed.
REPRESENTATIVE MOSES noted that the original version of HB
230 would have removed a cap that currently exists on annual
commercial fishing license fees. Those fees are based, in
limited entry fisheries, on the value of the permit, and in
non-limited entry fisheries on the average or gross
earnings. The current $750 cap has artificially kept permit
fees down to $150 maximum for Alaska residents and $750
maximum for non-residents.
REPRESENTATIVE MOSES explained that after the House Special
Committee on Fisheries heard testimony from commercial
fishermen on the potential impacts of that portion of HB
230, it was decided that the issue of fishing fees would be
examined during the interim. He stated CSHB 230 (FSH) only
addresses the vessel license fees and would generate
approximately $600,000 in additional revenue to the state.
The state's fisheries' management programs are losing ground
to inflation and increasing complexity and value of
fisheries, he added, and the legislation includes intent
language that the additional funds generated by HB 230 would
be used to enhance fisheries management and development
programs.
REPRESENTATIVE MOSES noted that CSHB 230 (FSH) has the
support of the United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA).
Number 101
REPRESENTATIVE PAT CARNEY referred to line 8 on page 1
regarding the payment of the license fee, and commented that
the language there seemed unnecessary because of previous
references to licensing for two years. He suggested
deleting from the beginning of "20" on line 8, through "and"
on line 9.
Number 126
VICE CHAIRMAN BILL HUDSON asked whether there was a shift
from one year to up to two years.
REPRESENTATIVE MOSES stated that was not the intent, and
said it had been "up to two years" previously.
Number 146
VICE CHAIRMAN HUDSON commented that he had been approached
by three commercial fishermen in Juneau who asked if
legislation could be introduced to create a five-year
license, paid in advance for that time period. The state
would then have the revenues in the bank to draw interest
from, with the idea being that the fishermen are in a
commercial business and a five-year license would be less
cumbersome to their commercial enterprises. He suggested
this would be something to look into in the future, and not
necessarily to consider as an addition to HB 230.
NUMBER 160
REPRESENTATIVE MOSES noted that under the fee structure
proposed in HB 230, most of the fishermen probably would not
want to pay the fees for five years in advance.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any comments on
Representative Carney's suggested language.
REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY made a MOTION to delete language on
line 8, beginning after "fee" to just before "and" on line
9.
Number 170
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections to the
motion. Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN suggested making the license fee
time period optional so that those who wished to pay for a
five-year license in advance could do so.
Number 187
FRANK HOMAN, COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL FISHERIES ENTRY
COMMISSION, said that the idea was something that would have
to be researched before any recommendation could be made.
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE voiced concerns over the impact
such a measure might have on administration of the fees.
Number 200
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a MOTION to pass CSHB 230 (FSH) as
amended with individual recommendations. He asked unanimous
consent.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections.
Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED.
Number 220
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced that the committee would next
take up the confirmations to the Board of Game. He
explained that at the committee's previous meeting on April
7, attorneys from the Department of Law and the Legislative
Legal Services' division explained their respective views on
the legal issues surrounding the appointments of Jack
Didrickson and Ernie Polley to the Board of Game. Having
heard those legal opinions, he hoped the committee could now
decide on the action they wished to take.
Number 238
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said he would like to MOVE that the
committee consider only Jack Didrickson be recommended for
confirmation to the disputed seat.
REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY noted that four of the appointees
should be moved.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE agreed and said that was his intent,
but because committee discussion had centered on Mr.
Didrickson, he would like to start with him.
Number 260
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN commented that the
confirmation decision would actually be made by the full
membership of the House and Senate in joint session. He
said the Resources committee recommendation was important
but in the end, all five names would be available to the
full body. Personally, he believed the committee should
first dispose of the first name before them, then consider
the next name the governor had put before the committee.
Number 279
VICE CHAIRMAN HUDSON remarked that if Mr. Didrickson is the
duly appointed nominee, as appeared to be the case, while
the governor takes the position that only Ernie Polley's
name should be put forward, then the committee's only option
is to advance Mr. Didrickson's name for confirmation. He
noted that this leaves the committee with the question of
what to do about Mr. Polley.
VICE CHAIRMAN HUDSON also suggested the committee send
forward a letter or some record of the issues at hand as the
basis for whatever decision is reached. He advised that Mr.
Polley's name should not be construed as having been
rejected for the seat. He said it was important that the
possibility be left open for Mr. Polley to be appointed to a
seat on the board in the future, or to Mr. Didrickson's seat
if he is not confirmed.
Number 320
JERRY LUCKHAUPT, ATTORNEY, DIVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES,
explained that on the issue of Mr. Polley, he differed in
opinion with the attorney general's office. He believed Mr.
Polley's name was never properly before the legislature. He
noted a rule that says when a name is properly before the
legislature and is not confirmed, that person is not
eligible for appointment to that board. That rule does not
apply in the case of Mr. Polley, he explained. Mr. Polley
would be eligible for reappointment, in his opinion.
MR. LUCKHAUPT referred to the attorney general's opinion,
stated at the previous meeting, which held that Mr. Polley's
name was properly submitted and was before the legislature,
so it would be viewed as a rejection were his name not taken
up and confirmed.
MR. LUCKHAUPT told the committee that regardless of what it
does, any name the full House wants to consider will be
considered and is eligible to be considered.
Number 355
VICE CHAIRMAN HUDSON repeated his suggestion that the
committee go along with Representative Bunde's motion to
advance the name of Mr. Didrickson for confirmation, but
also cover that action with a legal opinion explaining that
Mr. Polley's name was not taken up and was not denied.
This, he said, would leave open the possibility for Mr.
Polley to be appointed to the board at another time.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS referred to a draft letter for that
purpose prepared by committee staff, and asked for comments
on that from Ms. Odlund of the Department of Law.
Number 370
MARJORIE ODLUND, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, said her office
is basically holding that Mr. Didrickson is not before the
legislature at all to be acted on. Only Mr. Polley is
properly put before the legislature for confirmation, she
said. Mr. Didrickson, she said, was in a nomination status,
which she said was not a vested right and, therefore, the
removal for cause provisions do not apply. Any action taken
on Mr. Didrickson, according to the Department of Law, would
be a null and void action.
Number 387
REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY commented that the best way to resolve
the dispute would be for the committee to let both names go
before the full body, as Representative Finkelstein had
suggested.
Number 394
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE understood that both names would go
forward, but wanted to ensure that both names did not go
forward with the committee members' endorsement. He felt
the governor was trying to circumvent the process and he did
not want to endorse that. He wanted it to be clear that
only one person was properly before the committee, and that
the other name was not. He suggested that because the
attorneys representing the legislature held that the name
properly before the legislature was that of Mr. Didrickson,
the committee should heed that advice.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE noted that the attorney general's
office had another client, the governor, whose interests
they represent. He added that it was not his intent to
reject Mr. Polley, which would be the effect of taking up
Mr. Polley's name and not confirming him, but to act on the
legal opinion in the best interest of the legislature.
Number 408
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS explained to the committee that the letter
of explanation would accompany the committee reports that go
to the full body for confirmation.
Number 413
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN differed in his agreement with the
opinion of the respective attorneys. He said that if two
attorneys present different views, ethics would not allow
them to just find a rendering for their particular clients.
Because there are two opposing legal views, the committee
should not be bound to one of them just because the
legislature happens to have an attorney who says it should
be that way.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commented that the fact that the
committee had Mr. Didrickson as a nominee, but he was never
acted upon, does not place him in any higher position than
Mr. Polley. If the committee moves only on Mr. Didrickson's
name, he suggested that the letter of explanation
accompanying the committee report include a minority view.
He explained that this would be so the legislators
considering confirmation on the floor would not be guided
only by one opinion.
Number 449
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN suggested the committee could
make everyone satisfied with the process by voting on both
names and then voting on the letter. While he did not
necessarily agree with the opinion of the letter, he felt it
represented a viewpoint well portrayed in committee. The
minority view would be a good idea, he said.
Number 460
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE, in respect to Representative Green's
comments, said that the matter of who employs an attorney
does have an effect on the legal opinion presented. The law
is something reasonable people can disagree upon, he said,
and added that the legal opinion from the legislative
attorney does have the best interest of the legislature at
heart.
Number 471
REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY believed Mr. Didrickson had the
advantage in that he had already been serving as a member of
the Board of Game.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stressed the importance of the process,
which is to have a nomination made by the governor and
confirmed by the legislature. He felt that the committee's
actions seemed to be saying to the governor that the
legislature was taking exception to his wishes. If the
governor nominates someone or temporarily fills a position,
Representative Green said the governor should have the
prerogative to withdraw that name and nominate someone else.
Number 483
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS remarked that this discussion showed why
the legislature has attorneys available to address these
issues. He tended to agree with the legislative attorney,
that Mr. Didrickson's name was before the legislature and
his seat was not vacant for Mr. Polley to be appointed to.
He added that the Constitution provides for protection of
the board process so that a governor cannot play games by
filling seats and then taking those individuals out before
the legislature can act on confirmation. He pointed out the
potential for abuse if a governor moves appointees on and
off a board according to how they might vote on any
individual issue.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked the committee to review the draft
letter and discuss it.
Number 510
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN commented that it was a good
letter and an important part of the committee's
deliberations. He said that once the committee had acted on
the confirmations, it should also act on the letter. He did
not share the legal opinion in the letter, but felt the
letter was well-written and presents a good argument to
present to the full body.
VICE CHAIRMAN HUDSON remarked that the letter could be
reduced.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN proposed a substantive change:
Adding some acknowledgment at the end of the letter, that if
Mr. Didrickson's name was turned down, then Mr. Polley's
name could be considered for confirmation.
Number 529
VICE CHAIRMAN HUDSON referred to a conversation he and the
chairman had had with the governor, at which the governor
took the position that his appointment of Mr. Didrickson was
an interim appointment, and was never completed because the
name was never submitted to the legislature. Vice Chairman
Hudson suggested the letter should reflect the governor's
stand.
Number 536
REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY recommended that the committee members
read the relevant statute carefully. He said the statute
said simply that the governor makes the appointment, and
that appointment is then subject to confirmation by the
legislature. He noted that the statute did not say anything
about interim appointments.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE remarked that this issue was not a
discussion about the qualifications of the two individuals,
but about the process for checks and balances.
Number 550
VICE CHAIRMAN HUDSON reminded the committee that they could
each write their individual opinions on the committee
report, which would be read across at the time of the joint
confirmation session. To the assistant attorney general, he
asked what problems would be created if both names went to
the full body, and then Mr. Didrickson was not confirmed but
Mr. Polley was confirmed.
Number 567
MS. ODLUND said this would not create a problem at all
because this would create the outcome the attorney general's
office advocated.
VICE CHAIRMAN HUDSON noted that the legislative attorney had
held the opinion that once Mr. Didrickson was appointed,
that act constituted submission of the name to the
legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referred to the removal for cause
provision, and asked whether it applied to a board member
once confirmed, or after the appointment was made.
Number 581
MR. LUCKHAUPT explained that it was his opinion that the
removal provisions attach at the time an appointment is
made. The Constitution, he said, does not say anything
about nominations. In fact, he explained, the first draft
of the Constitution at the Constitutional Convention
included the language "nominate and appoint," with the idea
that nomination was embodied in the Constitution. That
language was taken out, he said, and the Constitution was
left with the language applying only to appointment.
MR. LUCKHAUPT referred also to Article III, Section 27, that
was put into the constitution, which said the governor could
make recess appointments, or appointments while the
legislature was not in session. Those appointments, he
said, are like any other appointment, except that they last
as long as the legislature says they last. Alaska Statute
39.05.080, he added, was adopted by the legislature and says
those appointments last until the person is confirmed or not
confirmed. To apply the removal provisions just to those
who have been confirmed by the legislature, he said, invites
the potential for abuse.
MR. LUCKHAUPT could see no distinction between when the
appointing authority performs the last act by appointing the
person, and the legislature's taking action by confirming or
not confirming. The system contemplates an orderly
progression of the governor appointing someone during the
interim, that person taking office and being subject to the
removal for cause provisions, and then the governor
submitting the name to the legislature. He explained that
his legal opinion has to do with what happens if the
governor fails to submit the name.
Number 620
MR. LUCKHAUPT cautioned that adopting the governor's view on
this issue opens the potential for abuse of the process. He
remarked that at the previous meeting, Barbara Blasco of the
attorney general's office had admitted to the committee that
there was the potential for abuse and that it was a very
likely potential that if Mr. Polley was confirmed he would
not be able to take office until the end of the legislative
session. He concluded that those remarks had been in
recognition of the argument that removal for cause provision
attaches at the time of appointment. That recognition was a
change in the attorney general's position from previous
years, he added.
MR. LUCKHAUPT stressed that it was important for the
committee to know that the removal for cause provision was
established to protect certain boards from political abuse
or manipulation, and to create continuity. He reiterated
that the provision does not apply to all boards, but it does
apply to the Board of Game.
Number 644
MS. ODLUND said the attorney general's office feels that
until an appointee has a vested right in office, which would
be after confirmation, he or she is nothing but a nominee.
The removal for cause provision applies, she added, only to
vested members of a board. Looking at the history of the
Constitution, she said, it is clear that the power of the
governor for board appointments is very broad. If the
governor has not actively presented a nominee to the
legislature, that interim appointee is not before the
legislature, she stressed.
MS. ODLUND urged the committee to concur with the attorney
general's position that the removal for cause provision does
not attach until a nominee is confirmed and vested as a
member of the board.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked both attorneys if, in their
reading of the statutes, there was any provision for
temporary appointments, particularly to the game board.
MR. LUCKHAUPT replied that there was no such thing that he
was aware of. He remarked on a provision in the
Constitution as well as in [AS] 39.05.080 which talks about
interim appointments to all boards and commissions. He
noted that it simply meant that the governor must be allowed
to make appointments during the legislative interim.
Number 675
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE then asked whether interim was also a
synonym for "temporary" and not only a reference to the
period when the legislature is not in session.
MR. LUCKHAUPT explained that interim is used in the context
of referring to the period between sessions of the
legislature in recognition of the fact that appointments
need to be made year round. If this provision was not
there, he said, various boards and commissions might have to
shut down for a part of the year while the legislature was
not available to confirm new members.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked if there was any statutory
provision which allowed the governor to do what he had done
in the case of Mr. Didrickson and Mr. Polley.
Number 686
MR. LUCKHAUPT answered that in his opinion, there was no
statutory authority for the governor's removal of Mr.
Didrickson from the board, effective April 5. He added that
[AS] 39.05.080 is clear in saying the governor shall submit
the names of those that were appointed who have not yet been
confirmed.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE then addressed to Ms. Odlund the same
question regarding statutory authorization of the governor.
MS. ODLUND replied that in [AS] 39.050.080, any appointment
made between sessions that has not been actively presented
is an interim appointment by definition. Until that person
is confirmed, she said, they can serve on a temporary status
as a nominee only. She said the attorney general's office
feels it is wrong to presume that [AS] 39.05.080(a) creates
an automatic presentment simply because the governor has
made an appointment.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked whether the question had arisen
in other situations.
TAPE 93-44, SIDE B
Number 000
MS. ODLUND said it had not happened where the appointments
had been made by one governor, but that there was an
instance between Governor Cowper and Governor Hickel in an
appointment to the Alaska Public Utilities Commission.
Before Governor Cowper's appointee was confirmed, Governor
Hickel replaced him with his own nominee, she explained.
Number 020
MR. LUCKHAUPT noted that there had also been other instances
between an outgoing and an incoming governor. He agreed
that there is potential for abuse in that area. He also
referred to the 1990 case where Governor Cowper made an
appointment before leaving office which would not be
confirmed until after the new governor took office. The
attorney general's opinion on the question goes back to the
Rod Pegues case in 1977 or 1979. Litigation had occurred in
one case, where Michael Whitehead was appointed to the
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission in the Hammond-
Sheffield transition. The state settled that case in Mr.
Whitehead's favor and paid him salary and damages. He noted
that these cases can cost the state a lot of money if they
go to court.
Number 125
REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY commented that Mr. Didrickson had been
serving as a member of the game board when he was asked to
step down. When Mr. Didrickson realized that he was given
no cause for his removal, and that by accepting that, he
might be perceived as agreeing that he had done something
wrong, he refused to step down voluntarily, Representative
Carney said. If the legislature did not confirm Mr.
Didrickson, he added, people might assume there was cause,
and Mr. Didrickson's reputation and personal concerns should
be considered.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE agreed that consideration should not be
taken lightly. An overriding consideration, he said, was
the checks and balances within state government. What
happens in this instance would set a precedent for future
behavior, he explained, and added that he sees the precedent
in this case as being different from those cases where there
were changes in appointments between an outgoing and an
incoming governor. He did not favor sending both Mr.
Didrickson's and Mr. Polley's names forward, because only
one name is legally before the committee, and he did not
want the committee to appear to be endorsing two candidates.
REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY reminded the committee that there was
a motion before them to move four names forward, and
suggested it was time to vote on that motion.
Number 180
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN suggested the committee take up
the names of the appointees one at a time, because there was
no legal problem with the other appointees. In the end, all
the names would be taken up on the floor, but the
recommendations of the committee, even if they are negative,
will be before the full joint session. The choice before
the committee members, he said, was whether they express
their views on the issue of whose name is properly before
the legislature through their votes on the committee report
form, or through the letter drafted to accompany those
committee reports to the floor.
Number 219
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN planned to use his vote to
indicate his views on individual people, and the letter as
the committee's view on who is properly before the
legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE remarked that by voting on Mr. Polley,
it would seem to be an endorsement of the view that his name
is properly before the legislature, and he did not want to
vote on Mr. Polley.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN reiterated that the letter lays
out the committee's position on that process, so if the
letter is supported, that position would be on record.
Number 229
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS explained that what the committee would do
would be to take up each committee report on the individual
appointees separately. He read the text of the committee
report, which indicated that the Resources committee
considered the appointment of each member, and the
recommendations of the committee members could be indicated
by signing recommend, do not recommend, or no
recommendation. He asked members if that process of taking
up the names individually were acceptable to them.
Number 239
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE AMENDED his MOTION to take up the names
individually.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said the name of Anne Ruggles would be
taken up first.
VICE CHAIRMAN HUDSON MOVED that the name of Anne Ruggles be
transmitted for consideration by the joint House and Senate
with individual recommendations. He asked unanimous
consent.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections.
Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE MOVED that the name of Roger Huntington
be advanced for confirmation to the Board of Game with
individual recommendations. He asked unanimous consent.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections.
Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED.
VICE CHAIRMAN HUDSON MOVED to advance the name of Susan
Entsminger for confirmation to the Board of Game with
individual recommendations. He asked unanimous consent.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections.
Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED.
Number 269
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced the committee would next take up
the name of Jack Didrickson for confirmation to the Board of
Game. He asked the wishes of the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE MOVED that the name of Jack Didrickson
be advanced with individual recommendations. He asked
unanimous consent.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections.
Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED.
VICE CHAIRMAN HUDSON MOVED to advance the name of Ernie
Polley with individual recommendations, including the letter
explaining the legal concerns of the committee.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN OBJECTED, noting that he felt sending
the letter that way would bias the rest of the legislature
who had not had the opportunity to hear the testimony of the
attorneys who had explained their legal opinions.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN suggested the committee take up
Mr. Polley's name first, and then act on the letter
separately.
VICE CHAIRMAN HUDSON AMENDED his MOTION to simply advance
the name of Mr. Polley for confirmation to the Board of
Game.
Number 310
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections.
Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS referred to the letter of explanation of
the legal questions surrounding the appointments of Jack
Didrickson and Ernest Polley to a position on the Board of
Game. He noted that the letter is in conceptual draft form.
He recommended that the letter be revised by committee staff
to its final form by Friday, April 16. He asked if there
was any discussion on the contents of the letter.
Number 329
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN commented that the letter was
well-written, but could be shortened somewhat. He noted
that it clearly expressed one viewpoint, but added that he
was not sure the whole committee agreed on that viewpoint.
He felt the committee could vote on the letter now, as the
conceptual basis for the final draft. He said the letter
should reflect the majority and minority views of the
committee.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked for a motion.
VICE CHAIRMAN HUDSON MOVED to transmit the letter for the
full consideration of the legislature with the committee
reports on the Board of Game appointees.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked for clarification on
whether the letter would constitute an endorsement by the
full committee of the majority legal opinion. He noted that
both he and Representative Green had differences of opinion
with the view expressed in the letter.
VICE CHAIRMAN HUDSON commented that given the differing
legal views presented to the committee, the committee
members could indicate their positions on the legal question
when signing the committee reports, as he had. He noted
that he had signed "do not confirm" on Mr. Didrickson's
report, and on Mr. Polley's, he signed "confirm if he is
legally before us."
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN remarked that the letter seemed
to contradict what Vice Chairman Hudson said. The letter
supports the view that only Mr. Didrickson's name is legally
before the legislature, he explained. He said the letter
should not be sent if it only reflects one view.
Number 397
VICE CHAIRMAN HUDSON suggested the committee hold the letter
until the next meeting in order to re-draft the letter to
reflect what the legal dilemma is and that the committee
members did not agree on which view was correct.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN noted that this would allow the
whole legislative body to know the full legal question at
stake.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS agreed that the letter could be revised to
reflect the difference of legal opinions, for consideration
on Friday, April 16, 1993.
CHAIRMAN HUDSON suggested the letter from the committee
could even have the two legal opinions attached when the
letter is transmitted.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN agreed this might work, but the
primary concern was that it be clear to the rest of the
legislature what the two legal opinions are.
Number 429
VICE CHAIRMAN HUDSON WITHDREW his MOTION to advance the
letter with the confirmation committee reports.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Number 432
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced that on Friday, April 16, the
committee would hear HB 182 and HB 183, relating to a
transportation corridor between Fairbanks and Nome. He also
reminded committee members that on Saturday, April 17, from
10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., the committee would hold a
statewide teleconference hearing to take public testimony on
HB 238, the oil spill response fund bill sponsored by
Representative Green. He told members copies of a draft
committee substitute prepared by Representative Green for
HB 238 were available for members' review.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the House
Resources Committee, Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting
at 9:35 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|