03/30/1998 04:07 PM House RLS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE RULES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 30, 1998
4:07 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Pete Kott, Chairman
Representative Gail Phillips
Representative Al Vezey
Representative William K.(Bill) Williams
Representative Irene Nicholia
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Kim Elton
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
Reconvened the Rules Committee meeting of March 18, 1998, for the
purpose of adjourning.
SENATE BILL NO. 209
"An Act relating to the Task Force on Privatization; and providing
for an effective date."
- FAILED TO MOVE CSSB 209(RLS) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 245
"An Act relating to minimum sentences for assault in the fourth
degree that is a crime involving domestic violence; providing that
a prisoner may not contact the victim of the offense when provided
access to a telephone or otherwise immediately after an arrest; and
amending Rule 5(b), Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure."
- MOVED CSHB 245(RLS) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 56
Relating to yttrium mining and transfer of the linear induction
motor research vehicle to Alaska.
- MOVED CSHJR 56(RLS) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 9
Proposing amendments to the Uniform Rules of the Alaska State
Legislature relating to committee meetings; and providing for an
effective date.
- HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 209
SHORT TITLE: TASK FORCE ON PRIVATIZATION
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) WARD
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/12/98 2165 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/2/98
01/12/98 2165 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/12/98 2165 (S) STA, FIN
01/20/98 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
01/20/98 (S) MINUTE(STA)
01/21/98 2250 (S) STA RPT 3DP 1NR
01/21/98 2250 (S) DP: MILLER, WARD, GREEN NR: DUNCAN
01/21/98 2250 (S) FISCAL NOTE (LAA)
01/21/98 2250 (S) INDETERMINATE FN (GOV)
01/26/98 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
01/26/98 2294 (S) FIN RPT 4DP 1NR
01/26/98 2294 (S) DP: PEARCE, SHARP, PHILLIPS,
TORGERSON
01/26/98 2294 (S) NR: ADAMS
01/26/98 2294 (S) PREVIOUS FN (LAA)
01/26/98 2294 (S) PREVIOUS INDETERMINATE FN (GOV)
01/27/98 (S) RLS AT FAHRENKAMP RM 203
01/27/98 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
01/29/98 2345 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 1/29/98
01/29/98 2346 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
01/29/98 2346 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
CONSENT
01/29/98 2346 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SB 209
01/29/98 2347 (S) PASSED Y14 N5 E1
01/29/98 2347 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE
01/29/98 2347 (S) DUNCAN NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
01/30/98 2360 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP
01/30/98 2361 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
02/02/98 2198 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/02/98 2198 (H) FINANCE
02/17/98 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/17/98 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
02/18/98 2348 (H) FIN RPT 6DP
02/18/98 2349 (H) DP: THERRIAULT, HANLEY, MULDER,
MARTIN,
02/18/98 2349 (H) KOHRING, DAVIS
02/18/98 2349 (H) SENATE IND FN (GOV/ALL DEPTS) 1/21/98
02/18/98 2349 (H) SENATE FISCAL NOTE (LAA) 1/21/98
02/18/98 2349 (H) REFERRED TO RLS
03/18/98 (H) RLS AT 4:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/18/98 (H) MINUTE(RLS)
03/30/98 (H) RLS AT 4:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 245
SHORT TITLE: DOM. VIOL. ASSAULTS;PRISONER CONTACTS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) DYSON, Berkowitz
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
04/10/97 1061 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/10/97 1061 (H) STA, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
04/18/97 1189 (H) BERKOWITZ CHANGED TO COSPONSOR
04/18/97 1189 (H) DYSON CHANGED TO PRIME SPONSOR
04/24/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/24/97 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/25/97 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/25/97 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/25/97 1340 (H) STA RPT 6DP
04/25/97 1340 (H) DP: JAMES, ELTON, BERKOWITZ, DYSON,
04/25/97 1340 (H) VEZEY, IVAN
04/25/97 1340 (H) 2 INDETERMINATE FNS (COR, ADM)
04/25/97 1340 (H) 2 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (LAW, DPS)
04/30/97 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 120
04/30/97 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
05/02/97 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
05/02/97 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
05/05/97 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 120
05/05/97 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
05/06/97 (H) JUD AT 2:15 PM CAPITOL 120
05/06/97 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
05/07/97 1598 (H) JUD RPT CS(JUD) 6DP 1NR
05/07/97 1599 (H) DP: CROFT, PORTER, GREEN, JAMES,
BUNDE
05/07/97 1599 (H) BERKOWITZ; NR: ROKEBERG
05/07/97 1599 (H) 2 INDETERMINATE FNS (ADM, COR)
4/25/97
05/07/97 1599 (H) 2 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (LAW, DPS)
4/25/97
02/19/98 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/19/98 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
02/23/98 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/23/98 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
02/27/98 2451 (H) FIN RPT CS(FIN) NT 2DP 6NR 2AM
02/27/98 2451 (H) DP: MARTIN, GRUSSENDORF; NR:
THERRIAULT,
02/27/98 2451 (H) HANLEY, MULDER, DAVIS, KELLY, MOSES;
02/27/98 2451 (H) AM: KOHRING, DAVIES
02/27/98 2451 (H) 2 INDETERMINATE FNS (ADM, COR)
02/27/98 2451 (H) 2 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (ADM, DPS)
03/30/98 (H) RLS AT 4:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HJR 56
SHORT TITLE: YTTRIUM MINING
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) HUDSON, Williams, Kookesh, Dyson
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/11/98 2279 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/11/98 2279 (H) RESOURCES
02/20/98 2390 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KOOKESH FOLLOWS
WILLIAMS
02/26/98 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/26/98 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/27/98 2450 (H) RES RPT 8DP
02/27/98 2450 (H) DP: DYSON, WILLIAMS, GREEN, BARNES,
02/27/98 2450 (H) MASEK, OGAN, HUDSON, JOULE
02/27/98 2450 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (H.RES)
03/30/98 (H) RLS AT 4:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HCR 9
SHORT TITLE: AMEND UN RLS: COMMITTEE ACTION ON BILLS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) ROKEBERG, Hudson
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/17/97 373 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/17/97 373 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE, RULES
04/22/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/22/97 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/24/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/24/97 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/28/97 1362 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) 4DP 1AM
04/28/97 1363 (H) DP: JAMES, DYSON, VEZEY, IVAN
04/28/97 1363 (H) AM: BERKOWITZ
04/28/97 1363 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (LAA)
03/13/98 2630 (H) COSPONSOR(S): HUDSON
03/19/98 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/19/98 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
03/20/98 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/23/98 2703 (H) FIN RPT CS(FIN) NT 2DP 7NR
03/23/98 2703 (H) DP: MULDER, KOHRING; NR: THERRIAULT,
03/23/98 2703 (H) KELLY, MARTIN, DAVIES, GRUSSENDORF,
03/23/98 2703 (H) FOSTER, DAVIS
03/23/98 2703 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (LAA)
03/23/98 2703 (H) REFERRED TO RULES
03/30/98 (H) RLS AT 4:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
CRAIG JOHNSON, Legislative Administrative
Assistant to Senator Jerry Ward
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 423
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4021
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 209.
DON ETHERIDGE
District Council of Laborers
8459 Kimberly Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-3907
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against SB 209.
PAM LaBOLLE, President
Alaska State Chamber of Commerce
217 Second Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-2323
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 209.
LISA TORKELSON, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Fred Dyson
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 428
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3467
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 254.
PATRICK FLYNN, Researcher
to Representative Ethan Berkowitz
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 406
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4919
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained changes to CSHB 254.
RICHARD VITALE, Legislative Assistant
to Senator Sean Parnell
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 504
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3880
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained changes to CSHB 254.
JAYNE ANDREEN, Director
Council on Domestic Violence
and Sexual Assault
Department of Public Safety
P.O. Box 111200
Juneau, Alaska 99811-1200
Telephone: (907) 465-4356
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 254.
DOUG SALIK, Intern
to Representative Bill Hudson
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 108
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3744
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HJR 56.
JANET SEITZ, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Norman Rokeberg
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 24
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4968
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HCR 9.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 98-6, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN PETE KOTT called the House Rules Standing Committee
meeting to order at 4:07 p.m. Members present at the call to order
were Representatives Kott, Phillips, Vezey, Williams and Nicholia.
Chairman Kott noted Representative Elton is ill and Representative
Porter is in a Judiciary Committee meeting.
CHAIRMAN KOTT stated, "This is the reconvening of a Rules hearing
that commenced the 18th of March. We recessed to the call of the
chair. We had one bill yet to discuss which was Senate Bill 209.
At this time I'm looking for a motion to move Senate Bill 209 to
the Rules Committee hearing calendar for today."
Number 029
REPRESENTATIVE GAIL PHILLIPS moved that SB 209 be scheduled for
today's calendar. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
Number 050
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT then adjourned the meeting of March 18, 1998.
Number 053
CHAIRMAN KOTT called the official Rules Committee meeting to order
for March 30, 1998. Members present were Representatives Nicholia,
Vezey, Phillips, Williams and Kott were present.
SB 209 - TASK FORCE ON PRIVATIZATION
Number 055
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the committee would address SB 209, "An Act
relating to the Task Force on Privatization; and providing for an
effective date," sponsored by Senator Ward.
Number 058
CRAIG JOHNSON, Legislative Administrative Assistant to Senator
Jerry Ward, Alaska State Legislature, came before the committee to
present SB 209. He stated the legislation is a bill which forms a
task force to study state government with an eye towards
privatization. He said the bill is very similar to a piece of
legislation that Governor Knowles vetoed last session and he stated
the reason was that it was a violation of the separation of powers.
He noted in the committee members files there are legal opinions
stating that it is not a separation of powers. Task forces are
assigned all the time. The legislation does not violate any
separation of powers.
MR. JOHNSON referred to SB 209 and said three members would be
appointed from the Senate, two from the majority, one from the
minority. Three members would be appointed by the House with a
majority and minority representation. Three members would be
appointed by the Governor, which also provides for labor
representation. Two members would be appointed from the public
sector by the Senate, and two would be appointed from the public
sector by the House. The task force would have a total of 13
members.
MR. JOHNSON said the task force would study privatization. He
noted there are 43 other states that currently have some type of
privatization, including Alaska. With the budgets and the revenue
short falls facing the legislature, the report from this task force
would be an invaluable tool in determining not only what areas of
government should be looked at for privatization, but also the
areas that shouldn't be looked at for privatization. He said SB
209 is very similar to SB 68 which was basically a 2-year plan.
The task force would be scheduled to report back to the legislature
in November with a report.
Number 107
CHAIRMAN KOTT noted that there is a proposed committee substitute
(CS), Version B, dated 3/30/98.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS moved to adopt the CS, Version B, dated
3/30/98.
REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY objected. He said he would like somebody
to explain the difference between SB 209 and the proposed CS.
Number 125
MR. JOHNSON explained that Version B extends the date of the task
force. He referred the committee to page 3, line 4, of the
original version and said the task force would sunset in November
and the CS would extend it until January 19, 1999. In Section 4,
page 2, it removes the ability of this body to administer the oath.
CHAIRMAN KOTT stated there is an additional change on page 2 where
the language, "and may meet during the interim as well as during
legislative sessions," was deleted. He said it was cumbersome and
unnecessary. It was taken for granted that they would have to meet
and whether or not they meet outside the legislative session or
inside was something that they would need to determine. If the
bill passes, there wouldn't be a legislative session beyond a
special session, and based on the number of legislators that would
be involved, they wouldn't hold a hearing during a special session.
Number 158
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated that he liked the original idea that
the task force would have the authority to administer an oath. He
questioned why that is being deleted. He said a task force is not
particularly a politically or legislatively strong entity.
Representative Vezey said he thinks that taking an oath should be
something that perhaps should be done on a more regular basis. He
pointed out that he has been lied to on a few occasions and he
doesn't like it.
Number 175
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS stated she requested that the amendment be
added to the legislation. She said she thinks it is unnecessary to
put that burden on any committee in the legislature. It is
degrading and demeaning and it leads to the possibility of
requesting subpoenas and the Senate President and the Speaker of
the House are the ones that are charged with issuing subpoenas if
they are needed in the legislative body and not a task force
committee chairman.
CHAIRMAN KOTT noted the portion relating to the oath that was
deleted in Section 4 on page 2, of the original versions.
MR. JOHNSON pointed out that Senator Ward is not opposed to the
date change. However, he did want to point out that part of the
reason for the date change was to give the committee more time to
act and respond. One of the things that is necessary to perform
this, although it has been done many times before by other states,
is that they have to deal with accurate information. One of the
ways of dealing with accurate information is to know that when
people come before the committee and testify that they in fact are
providing accurate information. He stated that is the reason for
the opposition to removing the oath from the legislation by the
prime sponsor.
Number 206
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS stated that in her eight years of serving
in the legislature and serving on numerous task forces and
committees, she believes it is an insult to make people come up and
take an oath of office that they're not going to tell a lie during
a committee hearing. She said she thinks it is the wrong message
to send as the legislature is trying to get the public to
participate in the whole legislative scenario. She said, "If we
immediately start the process by giving the information that
they're not going to tell the truth, you've just blown everything
we tried to do that was beneficial." She stated that there are
numerous task forces and people don't have to give an oath. It is
not a necessary to start that trend. Representative Phillips
stated she strongly opposes the requirement for an oath.
Number 222
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Representative Phillips if she is aware as to
whether or not a task force has ever been granted a subpoena or
oath powers.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS responded, "No, we have not. We have never
granted subpoena powers. In my years, I don't that we've ever
granted oath power."
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he would call for the question on the
motion to adopt the CS. He said since he is agreeable to three out
of four of the changes, he would ask to propose and amendment after
the CS is adopted.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there is still objection to adopting the CS.
There being none, the CS was before the committee.
Number 258
DON ETHERIDGE, District Council of Laborers, came before the
committee to testify against SB 209. He pointed out that last year
his organization did support it with a two-year study. The council
doesn't believe it can be done properly in the short amount that is
currently being granted to be studied. Mr. Etheridge informed the
committee members that it is very seldom that a task force is
created in the second year of a legislature. The legislature that
comes in next year doesn't have to act on any of the
recommendations of the task force. He referred to the price of $10
per barrel of oil and said the budget is being reduced every day.
We are looking at a 3 percent cut in all of the different
departments. He said the council feels it will be a waste of time,
energy and money to create the task force and the possibility
exists that the recommendations won't be implemented. Mr.
Etheridge pointed out the Department of Administration is already
doing these types of studies on a daily basis. He discussed the
fact that the central duplicating office is being closed. He
pointed out that Local 71 used to do all the roadside brushing and
that is now done under contracts and volunteer labor. They used to
do all the janitorial work in all the state buildings, but it is
now done cheaper with contracts. He referred to road striping and
said they said it would be cheaper to do it under contract. They
have now found out that it is not so the state is looking into
buying new equipment to do striping again. He discussed other
projects that had been contracted out and it was found that it
wasn't cheaper to do that. He said he believes that it would be a
waste of time, energy and money to do the study.
Number 316
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Mr. Etheridge if he is opposed just to
the task force or if he is opposed to studying the subject of
privatization.
MR. ETHERIDGE said the council is opposed to the particular task
force. He said they supported the bill last year with a two-year
study. He said last year, they sent every legislator a booklet
called the "Pitfalls of Privatizing." It took one person two years
to put together that booklet. It takes time to research the
information. He said the council is not concerned about being
looked at and compared to other industry. He stated that their
members are doing a good job and are doing their jobs within a
certain price range. Mr. Etheridge discussed subcontracts to
maintain roads and said a company will go out and just maintain the
surface and not take care of the culverts, ditching and road base.
They only bid strictly on what they look at as just taking care of
the surface by grading the road. The DOT/PF is currently looking
at taking care of the road bases instead of the grading surfaces.
They don't want to lose what they have and are concerned that it is
not going to be done properly.
Number 353
PAM LaBOLLE, President, Alaska State Chamber of Commerce, came
before the committee to testify. She informed the committee that
the Alaska State Chamber of Commerce supported the bill last year
and they currently support it. Ms. LaBolle said they would have
liked to have had a two-year process. Unfortunately, it was vetoed
by the Governor and so we are left with a one-year process.
However, any information that's gained will be useful to the next
legislature. She stated the chamber, as an organization, will not
let that information go away. They feel it is very important to
start, whenever we can to do what does need to be done. Ms.
LaBolle said she believes that the money spent for having such a
task force will be money well spent if some privatization
opportunities are identified that would provide more private sector
jobs which would provide a tax base that will provide for the
payment of the government we have. She stated the Alaska State
Chamber strongly supports the legislation and urged that the
committee support it.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Ms. LaBolle if she is aware of task forces
being created in the second half of a legislative session.
MS. LaBOLLE stated that she can't think of any. She said sometimes
the impact of having a shorter time period is that we get on with
it faster.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if the time period to study the issue would be
the same whether or not it is in the first half or second half.
There would still be that five-month or six-month period to study
the issue. It is just a matter of whether or not the task force
recommendations are going to be heard by the next legislature that
comes into office.
MS. LaBOLLE said she concurs with that. If there is information to
be found and once it's been identified and exists, her organization
isn't going to forget about it. She stated that she believes the
information is important and valuable to whatever legislature is in
at that time.
Number 398
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if the chamber has supported task forces in the
past.
MS. LaBOLLE informed the committee that they supported Long-Range
Financial Planning Task Force. She pointed out that one thing she
likes about SB 209 is that it is more defined that this is a
recommendation to the legislature. The Long-Range Financial
Planning Task Force kind of got away from us in the respect that it
took a life of its own instead of coming back to the legislature
for the legislature's approval of what they wanted to do.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Ms. LaBolle if she knows when or if the
legislature has ever acted on a task force recommendation.
MS. LaBOLLE responded, "I think that there were some seeds in the
Long-Range [Financial] Planning Task Force that actually -- I mean
it was the Long-Range [Financial] Planning Task Force that even
though it wasn't the plan that was adopted, it was some of the
things that were identified in the work that was done that, indeed,
provided some of the foundation for what the majority plan ended up
doing."
Number 422
IRENE NICHOLIA asked if the board members of the chamber voted in
support of the bill.
MS. LaBOLLE informed the committee that the state chamber meets
annually in Anchorage in December. Local chambers send their
representatives and the elected board members also come. There is
usually about 100 people at the meeting from all over the state.
They bring their priorities of what issues need to be addressed by
the legislature. Privatization has been one of the chamber's top
priorities for at least five years. In fact, two years in a row
the chamber held a seminar in the summer. The first was in the
summer of 1995, and they brought in national experts. Those
experts discussed all of the things that were happening in
privatization and how government was reducing size. The next year,
the chamber followed up with a seminar that was focused on the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. She said they
brought in national and international experts to speak about how
some governments had achieved some cost savings and improved
efficiency by going to the private sector.
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked if the bill was voted on or was it
approved by the board members. She asked if the chamber passed a
resolution.
MS. LaBOLLE responded that the chamber passed a resolution voted on
by the board of directors who was elected by the membership. She
said the board is approximately 70 people in size.
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA requested a copy of the resolution.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS noted that the chamber also supported the
Deferred Maintenance Task Force. She said that is probably one
task force that is producing results and the legislature will
proceed with those results.
Number 470
REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS stated that the task force will cost
$25,000 for this year. He asked Ms. LaBolle if she thinks that the
information that will come from it will be worth that amount.
MS. LaBOLLE responded that she believes that there are some cost
saving opportunities out there and it would take a very small one
to pay a return of $25,000.
Number 479
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there were any further people to testify on
SB 209.
MR. ETHERIDGE indicated that he wanted to make another comment. He
said he had forgot to mention the fact that anything that is
implemented as far as privatizing still has to go through the
Department of Administration and they have to do a study on cost
savings under the labor contacts. That would also be a very large
additional cost that should be looked at.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if those issues are identified in the current
labor contacts.
MR. ETHERIDGE responded in the affirmative. He said it is in
subcontracting language in almost all the bargaining units. It
states that before a public employee can be laid off due to
contracting, the Department of Administration has to do a cost
analysis to make sure that there will be a savings before they can
contract out the work.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if those items have been included in past
contracts for the unions.
MR. ETHERIDGE responded in the affirmative and stated that it is
language that has been included ever since he has been involved in
negotiating. He noted he has been negotiating labor contracts for
the last 16 years.
Number 509
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA said there is $25,000 for the task force.
She asked, "What would the cost be in your (indisc.)? Do you know
what the estimate would be?"
MR. ETHERIDGE stated, "It would depend upon the recommendation that
is made by the task force as to how much or who they would like to
see contracted out. Then it would come back to cost at that point.
I've heard anywhere from $25,000 up to as high as $1 million for
some of the costs studies that is being tossed around right now."
Number 523
CHAIRMAN KOTT pointed out that there is a fiscal note from the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that indicates that prior
feasibility studies of this type, would have to be conducted by all
the departments. Under most of the state's labor agreements, those
cost anywhere between $20,000 and $50,000 per study.
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA said, "So you're talking about $25,000
already from Administrative Services that was written and signed by
Pamela Varney. And then are you talking about an additional
$20,000 to $50,000 to that amount?"
CHAIRMAN KOTT responded, "In theory, I suspect you could be talking
about that much. There are some other issues here that are
identified in the analysis regarding the labor agreements which
require other procedures to be followed before contracting out
work. I don't know what those are so I don't know if there is any
costs associated with those other issues." He noted that it would
be something for the Twenty-First Legislature to consider as to
whether or not, based on the findings, they even want to proceed to
determine whether or not a feasibility study would show cost
savings.
Number 550
MR. JOHNSON said the way the collective bargaining agreements read
is a formal feasibility study must be made prior to letting a
contract. Prior to letting that contract, the next legislature
will take the information that has been gained from the study and
make the determination as to whether or not they want to proceed
with the study and appropriate the money at that time. The task
force would not incur any of those feasibility studies. It would
be up to the next legislature to determine whether or not they
choose to proceed with that. Mr. Johnson referred to the short
time frame and stated that there has already been a lot of work
done on privatization. He said, "To think that we wouldn't use
Local 71's report, we plan on using that, we plan on using every
piece of information." Mr. Johnson noted he has a copy of the
Deferred Maintenance Task Force's report which was done in about
the same amount of time.
Number 569
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS referred the Legislative Affairs Agency
fiscal note and said there is an explanation sheet with continuing
notes. She pointed out that the second paragraph on page 2 says
that the task force is expected to travel once in 1998 and three
times in 1999. She asked what the fiscal note was on the two-year
task force.
MR. JOHNSON pointed out that it was revised down from fiscal note
last year. He said he believes that the travel and per diem was
covered under the regular legislative budget, so that was not in
the fiscal note. He said, "This year I think it was determined
that to include their travel and per diem in the fiscal note - that
was different and I think that there is an additional one trip for
a staff member in this one that wasn't in the last one."
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked what the reference is to three trips
on 1999, or is that an oversight.
MR. JOHNSON pointed out that it relates to the fiscal year and not
a calendar year.
Number 588
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked what the time frame would be.
MR. JOHNSON stated it would begin immediately upon passage and it
is hoped to have some meetings prior to leaving Juneau. He noted
that the time frame would end January 19, 1999. He noted the state
of Colorado has done a similar study in about the same amount of
time. He pointed out that in the Governor's veto message he
indicated that he would be directing his staff to begin looking at
the privatization issue. Mr. Johnson said he anticipates that a
lot of work has already been done if the veto message is accurate
and the Governor lives up to it.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Mr. Johnson if he knows if in the preliminary
budget discussions whether or not departments have come forward and
indicated that they are willing to proceed along some lines of
privatization of if they are doing something along that continuum.
MR. JOHNSON responded, "I have to assume, because the Governor is
the head of that food chain, that the Governor's veto message where
he states he would be directing his commissioner of Administration
to be looking in that direction is accurate. I know of none
specifically. The one budget I deal with is Corrections. I think
we're all aware of what's happening in that area and the department
has made the stand that basically makes their criteria, sound
policy, et cetera, that they would look into it."
Number 611
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA explained that after Easter, the
legislature is going to be very busy. She said she is wondering
how the three members of the Senate and three members of the House
fit into the time frame for meetings and getting the information
together.
MR. JOHNSON said he wouldn't want to speak to how any member of the
body would fit into anything. That's not his position as a
staffer. He said it is a doable time frame. He said, "If you look
at the numbers - the staff available to this with six legislators
is quite extensive. There is a lot of staff time available there
after session. So we anticipate utilizing some of that staff as
well. And depending on the chair, if Senator Ward were to be on
this committee, I know a large part of my responsibility would be
working on this task force." He apologized that he can't speak to
the time of a senator or a representative.
Number 627
CHAIRMAN KOTT pointed out that there is very little time. He
referred to the process such as calendaring the bill, changes to
the bill and then the bill sitting on the Governor's desk for 15
days, he can't see that any hearings could be conducted before the
legislative session is over. The Speaker and President would have
to identify some individuals to be on the task force. He noted he
has made it clear that he does not want to be on the task force
because it is a campaign year and there are some legislators that
don't want to be inundated with those kinds of things.
MR. JOHNSON indicated that there are some commissioners available
to draft some letters to start some research so they can prepare
some information for when there is a meeting.
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA questioned how the bill fits in with
cutting $50 million from the budget.
MR. JOHNSON responded, "I think that is probably the best fit we
have. I think the report that Mr. Etheridge was mentioning said
that - I don't want to misquote, but I think that the statement was
at best 10 percent savings is what's been recognized. If it wasn't
from that report, it's on many others. I have a two-foot stack of
departmental privatizations from around the country. There are
think tanks set up in California that area going to lend their
assistance staff. They've just come back from Kansas where they've
established the same thing. The nationwide reports is anywhere
from 10 to 30 percent savings by privatization. If we take the low
end of that number, 10 percent, and take a department - I'll say
the Department of Corrections with $120 million or so budget. You
don't have to cut too many 10 percents to get to the $50 million,
and all the while not affecting a single service that's being
delivered to your constituents. So we are able to trim the $50
[million] and deliver the same services equal the services they're
receiving now. So I think that's a very good fit and I think
that's the whole purpose. I think if the Finance Committees today
had the benefit of the first year study that part of that $50
million cut that they're having to do now would be a much easier
job to do instead some of the -- the very well thought out process
they go through now might be enhanced by having some of this
abilities. One of the big benefits of this is know what not to
privatize or to look at because maybe everyone in Mr. Etheridge's
local is doing a great job and they know that and that's a good
thing for them to know too. So I think the budget cutting is the
prime driving force behind this legislation."
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA said, "I just think this is almost worth
$75,000, if all the estimates are correct in the fiscal note. And
I just think $75,000 is a lot to spend when you don't know if this
is going to be used by the next legislature."
MR. JOHNSON said the fiscal note on the bill is not $75,000.
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA noted that she said that was an estimate.
MR. JOHNSON referred to the additional $50,000 that is being
referenced and said it would be up to the next legislature to
appropriate. He noted there are six collective bargaining units
and each one of them may require that, so it may be even more than
that. However, if you're talking a 10 percent savings on $100
million budget or a $1 billion budget, the math is pretty clear.
Number 687
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said, "I would quickly move that we - and I
would defer to Leg Legal to draft it properly, but just adding the
Section 4 (b) oath part to the bill be made as an amendment to this
as - and incorporating the committee substitute and I'll address
that."
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS objected.
CHAIRMAN KOTT stated that there is a motion to reinsert the
language that was in the previous version of the bill that dealt
with the oath.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he would point out that it is a
permissive statement and it is not mandatory. He stated he thinks
that committees and task forces appointed by the legislature
probably already have this authority. He said that it is routinely
put into statute the right to administer oaths. Representative
Vezey said they are not giving subpoena or certain other special
powers to the task force. It is a step that the legislature should
start doing on a more routine basis.
TAPE 98-6, SIDE B
Number 006
CHAIRMAN KOTT said there is a motion to reinsert lines 26 and 27 of
Version A of the bill and there is an objection.
A roll call vote was taken. Representative Vezey voted in favor of
the motion. Representatives Phillips, Williams, Nicholia and Kott
voted against the motion. So the amendment failed to be adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS stated that he is concerned regarding the
legislation and it is not because of the fact that it looks into
privatizing, but it is because of the time. It is campaign year
for 50 legislators.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said he also shares Representative Williams concern.
Number 055
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS made a motion to move SB 209, as amended,
from the House Rules Committee with individual recommendations and
with the attached fiscal note.
CHAIRMAN KOTT stated there is a motion to move CSSB 209, Version B,
from committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal note. He asked if there was an objection.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he wanted to raise a point. He said he
didn't know that the bill had been amended. He said he wanted to
clarify that the committee is voting on HCSSB 209, Version B.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said that is correct. He asked if there was an
objection.
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA objected.
Number 090
CHAIRMAN KOTT called for a brief at-ease at 4:56 a.m. He called
the meeting back to order said there was an objection to moving the
bill.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to move HCSSB 209, Version
B. Representatives Vezey and Williams voted in favor of moving the
bill. Representatives Nicholia, Phillips and Kott voted against
moving the bill. So HCSSB 209(RLS) failed to move out of
committee.
HB 245 - DOM. VIOL. ASSAULTS;PRISONER CONTACTS
Number 128
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the next order of business would be HB 245
"An Act relating to minimum sentences for assault in the fourth
degree that is a crime involving domestic violence; providing that
a prisoner may not contact the victim of the offense when provided
access to a telephone or otherwise immediately after an arrest; and
amending Rule 5(b), Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure," sponsored
by Representative Dyson.
LISA TORKELSON, Legislative Assistant to Representative Fred Dyson,
Alaska State Legislature, came before the committee. She stated
that Representative Dyson had been called to a family emergency.
Ms. Torkelson noted that Patrick Flynn and Richard Vitale would
assist her in presenting the bill.
CHAIRMAN KOTT indicated that there is a proposed committee
substitute, Version V. He asked for a motion to adopt the proposed
committee substitute.
Number 150
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS made a motion to adopt Version V. There
being no objection, CSHB 245, Version V, dated 3/5/98, was before
the committee.
PATRICK FLYNN, Researcher to Representative Ethan Berkowitz, Alaska
State Legislature, came before the committee. He explained the
draft before the committee is a blending of a bill originally
sponsored by Representative Berkowitz and Representative Dyson then
took the lead on it. He said, "We are blending in elements of
Senator Parnell's bill, which covers similar subjects, due to the
lateness in the session." Mr. Flynn explained the original bill
provided for graduated sentencing for domestic violence offenders.
He referred the committee to page 5, lines 4 through 8, and stated
a second offense is 30 days and a third offense would be 60 days
for a fourth degree assault involving domestic violence.
MR. FLYNN stated the next provision is the creation of the crime of
unlawful contact in the first and second degrees. That is an A
misdemeanor and a B misdemeanor. It prevents the defendant from
contacting their victim preceding their arraignment. He noted that
in all cases that is 24 hours or less. He said, "This is the
infamous one phone call where the defendant calls the victim of the
crime and threatens him or with retribution if they do not drop the
case."
MR. FLYNN explained the next provision that was added is the no
contact order on page 4, lines 4 through 6. The judge can order
that there be no contact as part of the release provisions. He
said that there are other changes in the bill so that all the
changes conform through the statute. He said he will let Mr.
Vitale explain the provisions that are being added from Senator
Parnell's bill.
RICHARD VITALE, Legislative Assistant to Senator Sean Parnell,
Alaska State Legislature, came before the committee. He pointed
out that the first change adds some conforming language to clarify
the original intent of the domestic violence law that was passed in
1996. Those sections are sections 7, 14, 15 and 16. The original
intent of that act was that any batterers' program that received
referrals had to be approved by the Department of Correction's
regulations in regulations in a condition with the council.
Unfortunately, some judges have read into the law that there is
some wiggle room in there and they're now referring batterers to
non-approved programs. This has created sort of a half-hazard
policy throughout the state. It is the belief of the sponsor that
if we're going to have a policy of regulations and standards for
batterers' programs, it has to be statewide and consistent.
MR. VITALE stated that Sections 18 and 19 are rule changes that
were suggested by the Office of the Attorney General. He said that
Section 18 allows evidence of other sexual assaults or attempted
sexual assaults when prosecuting an attempt of a sexual assault.
It currently is not allowed under the rules, but it would bring
Alaska more in line of what other states do. He said it would help
prosecutors with cases they have on sexual assault.
MR. VITALE pointed out that Section 19 clarifies some language as
there was some confusion between the use of crimes of domestic
violence versus acts of domestic violence. Acts of domestic
violence is the chosen phraseology in these rules and they want to
keep it consistent.
Number 248
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said it is his understanding that currently
the courts and the department has a lot of leeway regarding
rehabilitation programs. He stated there have been different
groups who have tried to get themselves legislated as a
rehabilitation program. Representative Vezey said there has been
a number of judges and people that are involved in these referrals
that have objected in that some of the programs that are available
just aren't worth sending people to in their opinion. He pointed
out that this isn't exactly an apple to apple comparison because he
is rolling that in with a lot of other programs. Representative
Vezey said, "It makes me wonder if what were trying to do here is
trying to say a one size fits all - taking away all sorts of
discretion from the department and the judiciary as to what
rehabilitation programs are utilized."
MR. VITALE explained the regulations were developed taking into
account all batterers' program concerns. The bottom line of why
the regulations were established is that they had to make sure
there was a minimum standard of safety in every program out there.
He said, "If the courts were going to refer somebody to them, they
are taking out certain amount of liability and so the current law
is that you must be going to a council approved... Some judges are
not doing that so I guess if you were to take the argument that we
shouldn't have any regulations, it should be repealed from all of
them then, as current law is requiring it and it's being, like I
said, depending on what jurisdiction you are in, some judges
support this and some don't."
Number 293
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked how the legislation takes care of the
batterers in rural Alaska. She asked if there is a section that
address a rural program not only for the batterers, but also for
the victim.
MR. VITALE said that there is nothing specific for the rural areas
in the bill, nor under the current law does he know of anything
specific (indisc.). He noted that in HB 461, the supplemental
bill, money was added for the council to help with all the
programs, statewide, to get training if they need it through the
council.
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked if there are programs in place in
rural Alaska.
MR. VITALE stated to his knowledge, there aren't any programs yet
approved besides two that were grandfathered in, the MAP Program in
Anchorage and Tongass in Juneau. He noted there are applicants out
there.
Number 324
JAYNE ANDREEN, Director, Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual
Assault, Department of Public Safety, came before the committee.
She explained that there are 14 or 15 known batterers' programs in
the state. Two of them currently meet the approval and two more
have applied for the approval process. The smallest communities
that currently have batterers' programs are Dillingham and Homer.
She noted that there has been an active movement in Petersburg,
Wrangell and Nome to get something together. She explained that
one of the things that Nome is looking at is how they can provide
outreach and ongoing services to the offenders who are out in the
villages. Ms. Andreen informed the committee when the council
developed the regulations and when the Department of Corrections
has gone through a regulation revision process, one of the things
that they look at is how would they apply to and pertain to Bush
Alaska. She stated that she is fairly confident that there are
standards that still maintain the minimum level of service that can
be adopted and adapted in the Bush communities.
Number 345
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA said, "I asked that question because we did
speak to Lori (Indisc.) that works on domestic violence and sexual
assault and she did mention that there weren't any rural programs
in place for batterers and that there weren't any programs in place
for the victims either. So that was a big concern about this bill
when we're mandating more regulations. And I support the
regulations, but there has got to be programs out there when you're
doing something like this to take care of those people as well."
MS. ANDREEN said she would clarify that there are programs in many
of the villages for victims. There is outreach takes place through
the 22 regular kind of program that the council funds. That
includes the Stay Home Program. She said there is also a growing
movement with the Violence Against (Indisc.--coughing) Program -
Indian discretionary money. The Tanana Chiefs Conference is
developing an extensive village program. She said there are a
number of corporations that are working on programs.
Number 364
CHAIRMAN KOTT referred to SB 316 and asked Mr. Vitale if CSHB 245
is inclusive of all of the Senate Bill.
MR. FLYNN informed Chairman Kott that one part was left out that
dealt with criminal rule 403.
MR. VITALE noted that actually currently is not included in SB 316,
it potentially was going to be amended in.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if SB 316, in its entirety, is currently in the
new CSHB 245. He asked if SB 316 is currently in the Senate
Judiciary Committee.
MR. VITALE responded that SB 316 is in the CSHB 245. He also said
he believes the bill is in the Senate Judiciary Committee and it
has not had a hearing in the Senate as of yet.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if it is the wish of the sponsor to roll the
Senate Bill into the House version of the legislation.
Number 387
MS. TORKELSON explained that it is the sponsor's desire to do so.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY referred to Section 16 and said "I think what
we're doing here is reducing the services that are available to the
Corrections Department - the judiciary. These programs should be
in place. The approval, the certification process should all be in
place, and what not, before we mandate that that's what we're going
to limit our programs to. I just think that we're not ready for
Section 16 at this time." He made a motion to delete Section 16
from the committee substitute.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS objected.
Number 409
MR. VILTALE said that the Governor's Conference on Domestic
Violence in December included the judiciary (indisc.). He noted he
spoke to several judges who were in support of the concept of
making sure that it was uniform throughout the state.
MS. ANDREEN explained that historically, the idea of having
approved programs goes back, in part, to a request by the judiciary
to have some entity in the state helping to determine which are
good programs and (indisc.).
CHAIRMAN KOTT said there is a motion before the committee and there
is an objection.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Nicholia, Phillips,
Williams and Kott were against the motion to delete Section 16.
Representative Vezey voted in support of the amendment. So the
motion failed.
Number 436
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS made a motion to move CSHB 245, Version Z,
dated 3/5/98, out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying zero fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHB
245(RLS) moved out of the House Rules Standing Committee.
SB 209 - TASK FORCE ON PRIVATIZATION
Number 447
CHAIRMAN KOTT noted that he wanted to serve notice of
reconsideration of his vote on SB 209.
HJR 56 - YTTRIUM MINING
Number 450
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the next order of business would be HJR 56,
"Relating to yttrium mining and transfer of the linear induction
motor research vehicle to Alaska."
DOUG SALIK, Intern to Representative Bill Hudson, Alaska State
Legislature, came before the committee to explain HJR 56. He
stated that the legislation urges the Federal Railroad
Administration to transfer the linear induction motor research
vehicle (LIMRV) to the state of Alaska. This transfer will allow
for potential development of new industrial and research businesses
in Alaska. The development the yttrium, a rare earth element,
could revitalize the Ketchikan area after the loss of the pulp mill
in that area.
MR. SALIK said local employment in mining refining as well as
converting the LIMRV would be used by the Power Superconducter
Application Corporation. He noted there is a picture of the LIMRV
in the member's files. Mr. Salik pointed out that state funding is
not requested at this time for any industrial development by the
company. The transfer of the LIMRV could provide opportunities for
economic growth and development in this area as well as for the
state.
MR. SALIK explained the proposed committee substitute, Version E,
would make two changes. One is the removal of specific community
names. The removal was requested to allow other Southeast
communities to be involved in the manufacturing and industrial
development as well as the communities that were previously named.
Mr. Salik stated that the second change was related to the removal
of references to any mining activities. The change was made
because of the safety concerns mentioned by the community of
Metlakata in the mining of yttrium. He thanked the committee for
considering the bill.
Number 484
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he has CSHJR 56, Version E, and
questioned if it is the correct version before the committee.
MR. SALIK pointed out the original version was Version A and
Version E is the proposed committee substitute. He again
reiterated the changes.
Number 498
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS moved to adopt CSHJR 56, Version E, Glover,
dated 3/23/98.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY objected. He said he can see some merit in
taking out names of communities. He asked, "Why in the world are
we even entertaining this resolution if we're taking out reference
to mining? Rare earth happens to be just that. They are rare
earths and Alaska has the only known deposits in North America.
Mr. Chairman, I think this is great resolution, but if we're going
to take out the best parts of it, let's just not deal with it.
Let's just let it die."
CHAIRMAN KOTT said not all the issues dealing with mining are being
deleted as mining is still contained in the title.
MR. SALIK explained the reason that there is the removal of mining
in Version E was to speed the resolution along. The company along
with the federal government felt that the mining activity would
come along, but it would take approximately five years to do so
with all the federal regulations. Mr. Salik said it is his
understanding that yttrium is found in quantities that are closely
associated with uranium and thorium which are radio active. The
permitting process on that would take awhile. In order to speed
the resolution along, to get the LIMRV to Alaska and to create
these jobs as soon as possible, the city of Craig and the Power
Superconducter Applications Corporation made the proposal asking
for the removal of the mining so that the project could begin as
soon as possible.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY noted he didn't have Version A. He stated
that he assumes what was deleted was a reference to the potential
for a very valuable mining operation to the state of Alaska. He
said he finds it offensive that mining is being deleted.
Representative Vezey said he would like to stay with Version A.
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS said he is familiar with the mining area
and said he would assume that it will take four or five years.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he would withdraw his objection.
Number 552
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS said she reads the changes as not opposing
mining at all. She said it means expediting the process of getting
the vehicle here so that things can begin.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS added, "So that we can show them, Mr.
Chairman, that yttrium is needed."
MR. SALIK said that is correct. It is more for the expedience
factor rather than the removal of mining. He noted they are still
very much in favor of the mining.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS said without the mining, there won't be any
yttrium produced.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said the information he has regarding yttrium
is that currently the primary source is China.
MR. SALIK said he believes that is correct along with Russia.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated that he believes the largest supplier
currently is China and the ore sells for $85 a pound. As stated in
the bill, the refined product is 99.99999 pure product at $25,000
an ounce.
CHAIRMAN KOTT stated that there is a motion to adopt the proposed
committee substitute and asked if there is an objection. There
being none, CSHJR 56(RLS) was before the committee.
Number 575
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS made a motion to move CSHJR 56(RLS),
Version E, Glover, dated 3/23/98, out of committee with individual
recommendations and with the accompanying zero fiscal note. There
being no objection, CSHJR 56(RLS) moved out of the House Rules
Standing Committee.
HCR 9 - AMEND UN RLS: COMMITTEE ACTION ON BILLS
Number 582
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the committee would hear HCR 9, Proposing
amendments to the Uniform Rules of the Alaska State Legislature
relating to committee meetings; and providing for an effective
date.
Number 586
JANET SEITZ, Legislative Assistant to Representative Norman
Rokeberg, Alaska State Legislature, came before the committee to
present the bill. She said the proposed committee substitute for
HCR 9 proposes a change to the uniform rules of the Alaska State
Legislature. The change would permit a committee member absent
from Juneau to fully participate in committee meetings via
teleconference and direct the chair to record that member's vote
and recommendations on the committee report. Currently, a member
who is absent and participates via teleconference cannot vote to
move a piece of legislation out of committee or sign the committee
report. The committee report would reflect the absent member's
wish and would be signed by the chair on behalf of that member.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated this is a rule change which requires
greater than a majority vote on the floor.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY questioned where it is required that a
committee be present to vote for committee action. He said that is
a policy and he is not aware that it is a written rule that is
adopted by the legislature.
MS. SEITZ stated she doesn't know where it is written in the rules.
She noted that she has worked for the legislature for 22 sessions
and that has been the policy of procedure.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said absent the specific rule by the legislature, it
is probably contained in Mason's Manual, but noted he could be
wrong. He indicated HCR 9 would be held and research could be done
regarding Representative Vezey's question.
Number 606
CHAIRMAN KOTT recessed the House Rules Standing Committee meeting
to the call of the chair at 5:31 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|