Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/05/1996 08:03 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 5, 1996
8:03 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jeannette James, Chair
Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chair
Representative Ivan Ivan
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Caren Robinson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Ed Willis
Representative Joe Green
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
* HOUSE BILL NO. 365
"An Act relating to the offense of possession of tobacco by a
minor."
- PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 354
"An Act relating to a retirement incentive program for certain
employees of school districts under the teachers' retirement system
and the public employees' retirement system; and providing for an
effective date."
- PASSED CSHB 354(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 368
"An Act relating to election campaigns, election campaign
financing, the oversight and regulation of election campaigns by
the Alaska Public Offices Commission, the activities of lobbyists
that relate to election campaigns, and the definitions of offenses
of campaign misconduct; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 317
"An Act relating to election campaigns, election campaign
financing, the oversight and regulation of election campaigns by
the Alaska Public Offices Commission, the activities of lobbyists
that relate to election campaigns, and the definitions of offenses
of campaign misconduct; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 365
SHORT TITLE: MINOR IN POSSESSION OF TOBACCO
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) BUNDE, James
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
12/29/95 2361 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/08/96 2361 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/08/96 2361 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY
02/19/96 2812 (H) COSPONSOR(S): JAMES
02/27/96 (H) STA AT 8:30 AM CAPITOL 102
02/27/96 (H) MINUTES(STA)
03/05/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 354
SHORT TITLE: RIP FOR SCHOOL DISTRICT EMPLOYEES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MACKIE
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
12/29/95 2359 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/08/96 2359 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/08/96 2359 (H) HES, STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE
01/16/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
01/16/96 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/15/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/15/96 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/16/96 2789 (H) HES RPT 3DP 2NR
02/16/96 2790 (H) DP: G.DAVIS, ROBINSON, BRICE
02/16/96 2790 (H) NR: BUNDE, TOOHEY
02/16/96 2790 (H) FISCAL NOTE (ADM)
02/27/96 (H) STA AT 8:30 AM CAPITOL 102
02/27/96 (H) MINUTES(STA)
03/05/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 368
SHORT TITLE: ELECTION CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) JAMES
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
12/29/95 2362 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/08/96 2362 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/08/96 2362 (H) STA, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
01/25/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
01/25/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
01/30/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
01/30/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/01/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/01/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/29/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/29/96 (h) MINUTE(STA)
03/05/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 317
SHORT TITLE: ELECTION CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) FINKELSTEIN
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
04/21/95 1427 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/21/95 1427 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
01/08/96 2358 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED-REFERRALS
01/08/96 2358 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
01/25/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
01/25/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
01/30/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
01/30/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/01/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/01/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/29/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/29/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/05/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 108
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-4843
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 365.
DELISA CULPEPPER, Member
Alaska Public Health Association
1874 Wickersham Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99507
Telephone: (907) 563-6426
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HB 365.
CHRIS STOCKARD, LT.
Planning and Research Section
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Public Safety
P.O. Box 111200
Juneau, Alaska 99811-1200
Telephone: (907) 465-4306
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 365.
GLEN RAY, Health Promotion Program Manager
Community Health and Emergency Medical Services
Division of Public Health
Department of Health and Social Services
P.O. Box 110616
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0616
Telephone: (907) 465-3140
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 365.
FOREST RAY
9278 Emily Way
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 789-0729
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 365.
LYNDA ADAMS, Regional Board Member
Seven Circles Regional Council
P.O. Box 7171
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-6227
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 365.
MICHAEL LIVINGSTON
Address not provided.
Telephone not provided.
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HB 365.
DIANE CROPPER
2006 Tudor Hills Court
Anchorage, Alaska 99507
Telephone: (907) 561-0211
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 365.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MACKIE
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 404
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-4925
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 354.
STEVE WRIGHT, Part of Executive Board
Kenai Peninsula Educational Support Association
P.O. Box 4645
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-7355
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 354.
LUCY HOPE, President
Mat-Su Education Association
P.O. Box 870887
Wasilla, Alaska 99687
Telephone: (907) 376-4796
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 354.
GARY BADER, Administrative Services Director
Juneau School District
10014 Crazy Horse Drive
Juneau, Alaksa 99801
Telephone: (907) 463-1700 x239
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 354.
VERNON MARSHALL, Executive Director
National Education Association-Alaska
114 2nd Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-3090
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 354.
STEVE MCPHETRES, Executive Director
Alaska Council of School Administrators
326 4th Street, Suite 404
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-9702
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 354.
WALT BROMENSCHENKEL
128 North Binkley
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-5846
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 354.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 424
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-2435
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 368 and HB 317.
JACK CHENOWETH, Attorney
Legislative Legal Counsel
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
130 Seward Street, Suite 409
Juneau, Alaska 99801-2105
Telephone: (907) 465-2450
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 368 and HB 317.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-27, SIDE A
Number 0015
The House State Affairs Committee was called to order by Chair
Jeannette James at 8:03 a.m. Members present at the call to order
were Representatives Ogan, Porter, Robinson and James. Members
absent were Representatives Green, Ivan and Willis.
HB 365 - MINOR IN POSSESSION OF TOBACCO
The first order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Committee was HB 365.
CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES called on the sponsor of HB 365,
Representative Con Bunde.
Number 0042
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE explained there were laws against minors
consuming alcohol and tobacco. Unfortunately, unlike minors
consuming alcohol, a glitch existed in the laws that prevented the
enforcement of the prohibition against minors consuming tobacco.
He explained "sting operations" were not allowed in tobacco
compliance checks, and HB 365 would take care of that. The problem
was addressed at the federal level with the passage of the Synar
Amendment that required states to conduct local random checks for
illegal sells. Alaska had been out of compliance because as the
laws were written it could be conceived that the minor was breaking
the law and the law enforcement official was contributing to the
delinquency of a minor. Therefore, HB 365 would allow undercover
minors working with law enforcement to buy tobacco under a random
unannounced inspection. He said, if there were no compliance
checks, there was no way to know which stores were selling tobacco
to children preventing the enforcement of the law. In addition,
many substance abuse prevention and treatment efforts would suffer,
if federal substance abuse block grants were reduced as a result.
He called HB 365 a simple bill and encouraged the support of the
committee members.
Number 0287
CHAIR JAMES said HB 365 was a good bill of which she signed on as
a cosponsor.
CHAIR JAMES called on the first witness via teleconference in
Anchorage, Delisa Culpepper.
Number 0335
DELISA CULPEPPER Member, Alaska Public Health Association, said the
Association supported HB 365. She explained tobacco was related to
a number of health problems in the United States and the world.
She commented many people believed it was a common rite of passage
for the youth when in actuality many of the adults that smoked
started before the age of 18 and never stopped. She cited a survey
in Anchorage where 31 percent of young males smoked and 34 percent
of young women smoked in the age group of 18 to 24. Moreover,
another survey indicated children were beginning to smoke on a
regular basis at a younger age. She suggested educating children
at an earlier age, increasing tobacco rates, and making sure
cigarettes were not readily available as a few solutions to the
problem. Laws existed that said it was illegal to smoke under the
age of 19, yet cigarettes were readily available. She concluded by
stating "lets stop the habit."
Number 0495
CHAIR JAMES asked Representative Bunde what the penalty was in the
law for a minor in possession of a tobacco product?
Number 0550
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE replied, in Anchorage according to news
reports, a citation was being issued rather than making an arrest.
Number 0591
REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON replied a fine was issued in Juneau
of about $300.
Number 0605
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER asked Representative Robinson if the
fine amount was in a municipal ordinance or in a state statute?
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON replied I think it is in a state statute.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness in Juneau, Chris Stockard,
Lt., Department of Public Safety, to answer her question.
CHRIS STOCKARD, Lt., Research and Planning Division, Office of the
Commissioner, Department of Public Safety, replied he was here to
answer questions. He did not have a prepared statement. The
penalty of a minor in possession of a tobacco product was a class
B misdemeanor.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness in Juneau, Glen Ray,
Department of Health and Social Services.
Number 0671
GLEN RAY, Health Promotion Program Manager, Community Health and
Emergency Medical Services, Division of Public Health, Department
of Health and Social Services, said the division was in favor of HB
365. He explained every state in the United Stated discouraged
tobacco use through banning sells to minors. He cited an estimated
3,000 minors started smoking every day which translated to about 1
million addicted minors every year. He explained tobacco use
usually started in early adolescence, and cited a 1992 behavioral
risk survey of which 84.5 percent of the current smokers reported
the use of tobacco before the age of 20. He further cited in 1995
a behavioral risk survey indicated 36.5 percent surveyed identified
themselves as current smokers, defined as at least one cigarette in
the last 30 days; and 21 percent identified themselves as frequent
smokers, defined as at least 20 cigarettes in the last 30 day.
There was a high rate of tobacco use in Alaska compared to the rest
of the United States. A report by the Center for Disease Control
(CDC) indicated the overall percentage of smokers was higher in
1993 than in 1989, while the trend was increasing among the youth,
this was directly associated with the sell of tobacco from small
vending stores. He further explained nicotine was the most
difficult addiction to overcome. Therefore, if the supply was
restricted, the amount of addicted smokers would decrease in the
long run. A recent study indicated only 28 percent of the vendors
obeyed the laws. The easy access, he asserted, sent a wrong
message to minors. In conclusion, he said HB 365 would reduce the
number of tobacco products acquired by minors thereby reducing the
number of people becoming addicted to tobacco, and improving the
health of the state.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness in Juneau, Forest Ray.
Number 1160
FOREST RAY said he was a sophomore at Juneau Douglas High School.
He was part of a sting operation this summer of which 10 places
were hit. He explained around six of the places sold to him easily
of which only about one-half asked him for identification. He
expressed his support for HB 365. He did not like to be around
smokers, and to breath the smoke and chemicals.
Number 1211
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked Mr. Ray if he was instructed not to
lie about his age? She wondered if that was an important part of
a sting operation.
Number 1233
MR. RAY replied he did not hear that part.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in
Ketchikan, Frances Young.
Number 1248
FRANCES YOUNG said she agreed with the previous testifiers, Ms.
Culpepper and Mr. Ray. She said the mortality and the cost related
to tobacco use added to the problem. She explained in Ketchikan a
judge required a 10 page report for a first offense on the effects
of tobacco. She further explained, if the minor was caught on
school property with a tobacco product, a one day in-house
suspension was enforced. Moreover, a second offense required a 20
page report, and a two day in-house suspension. Consequently, the
smoking rate in Ketchikan appeared to be down. According to a
compliance check in Ketchikan, three out of five vendors sold
cigarettes to minors. The vendors did not sell the second time
around, however. She called HB 365 a helpful bill.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in
Ketchikan, Lynda Adams.
Number 1424
LYNDA ADAMS, Regional Board Member, Seven Circles Council, said the
Council represented communities in Ketchikan, Juneau, and Sitka.
The Council supported HB 365, and further felt the House State
Affairs Committee should also hear HB 431. The Council supported
HB 365 because it would make sting operations easier for
communities. She reiterated the Council supported HB 365, and
hoped the committee would hear HB 431 as well.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in
Anchorage, Michael Livingston.
Number 1488
MICHAEL LIVINGSTON congratulated Representative Con Bunde on
proposing HB 365. He urged the committee members to pass the bill
forward to the next committee of referral. He also urged the
committee members to consider the penalties for businesses cited
selling tobacco products to minors. He recommended considering an
optional court appearance with a $300 fine. The reason, he said,
was because magistrates often dismissed businesses cited creating
a waste of time for a police officer to issue a citation.
Number 1550
CHAIR JAMES asked Representative Bunde to address the suggestion
Mr. Livingston made regarding the optional court appearance and the
$300 fine.
Number 1568
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE deferred to the experts in the Department of
Public Safety to answer the question.
Number 1594
LT. STOCKARD replied the Department did not handle a lot of these
cases. He cited in 1995 there were 3 cases of sales and 19 cases
of possession. The Department knew about the sting operations in
some communities, and that Judge Peter B. Froehlich pursued the
issue seriously and to the maximum in Juneau. The issue, however,
laid with the court system and not with law enforcement.
Number 1649
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER responded, unlike district court judges or
superior court judges, magistrates did not run for confirmation.
He said magistrates were employees of the court system, and
suggested sending a letter to the superior court judge when the
magistrate did not want to enforce the law.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in
Anchorage, Diane Cropper.
Number 1676
DIANE CROPPER explained she was the mother of five children in
Anchorage. She explained a Tesoro Northstore Company (7-Eleven)
store in Anchorage sold a tobacco product to her 16 year old son.
The receptionist of the Anchorage Police Department advised her to
call the Borough or Alcohol and Tobacco and Firearms for
information who in turn referred her to the Anchorage Police
Department. She said it was amazing that there was a law that no
one was enforcing. Furthermore, after several more phone calls she
was passed around until she talked to a Sergeant Nelson. She
explained to Sergeant Nelson she had a receipt showing the date and
time of the purchase and she wanted to file a complaint. She could
not identify the clerk and was told without positive identification
there was nothing that could be done. However, the police could
give her son a $300 ticket, and talk to the employees of the 7-
Eleven. The fact that she had a receipt did not matter. In
response, she said she would organize her own sting operation. The
police officer explained she would go to jail for aiding and
abetting a minor, receive a $300 fine, her son would receive a $300
fine, and lastly the store would get off because the evidence was
gathered while she was committing a crime. She was told tobacco
sells to minors were not a big enough crime to warrant anyone to
enforce the law. She explained her son looked like the average 16
year old, and he shared with her that the small stores were the
easiest to purchase tobacco products from.
Number 1885
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER replied sometimes the police department was
the messenger rather than the creator of the rules. The fact that
a case could not be made using her receipt was not an arbitrary
decision by the police department, but a decision made in law by
the courts. House Bill 365 was trying to correct her frustrations.
MS. CROPPER replied, "that's what I'd like to see happen."
Number 1928
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON wondered if the police officer could notify
the business owner a complaint had been reported.
Number 1935
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER replied, according to the testimony of Ms.
Cropper, that was what the officer suggested.
Number 1946
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON reiterated her concern about minors lying
about their age in a sting operation. She wondered if it needed to
be clarified in the bill.
Number 1976
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE replied the individuals were lying in a sting
operation, but not about their age. He cited the response, "I lost
my drivers license," was a lie. He did not view this as
entrapment, however. He said it was the obligation of the store
clerk to investigate the age further.
Number 2008
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON reiterated it was important to create a
program that did not encourage minors participating in a sting
operation to lie about their age.
Number 2046
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE replied, nonetheless, when entrapment was
involved it was not a good case.
Number 2066
CHAIR JAMES said it was more proper to ask for identification than
to ask how old was the person.
Number 2078
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said, according to the experts in Juneau,
the program worked because the clerks and business owners were
educated to the extent of the law. Her goal was to educate the
clerks to prevent the sale of tobacco products to minors.
Number 2137
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER replied it was preferable to educate as
Representative Robinson suggested. However, there were times when
a vendor intentionally violated the law, and that was when it was
important to allow law enforcement to make a case.
Number 2165
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated the age requirement for tobacco
products should match the age requirement for alcohol.
Identification was required when alcohol was purchased.
Number 2189
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON reiterated she had a problem with creating
a situation that supported a minor to lie about his or her age.
Number 2199
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE replied the fact that a minor tried to buy was
a lie. He said he did not want to encourage children to be
dishonest either.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked Representative Bunde to think about
the issue further and to talk to the experts here in Juneau.
Number 2222
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE moving forward, responded to the $300 fine
discussed earlier. He said he would consider increasing the fine
to $1,000, for example.
CHAIR JAMES said she would support an increase in the fine.
Number 2242
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved that HB 365 move from committee with
individual recommendations, and attached fiscal notes. Hearing no
objection, it was so moved from the House State Affairs Committee.
HB 354 - RIP FOR SCHOOL DISTRICT EMPLOYEES
The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Committee was HB 354.
CHAIR JAMES called on the sponsor of HB 354, Representative Jerry
Mackie.
Number 2358
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MACKIE read the following sponsor statement
into the record.
"I introduced HB 354 in response to the desire to many Alaskan
school districts to achieve operational cost savings through a
retirement incentive program. The program allows school districts
to offer early retirement to teachers at the higher end of the
district's salary scale. The savings would result from the hiring
of replacement teachers that are younger and lower on the pay
range.
"The proposed early retirement program is similar to programs
established for all public employees beginning in 1986 and ending
in 1990. A November 1991 legislative audit estimated that the
1989-90 retirement incentive program saved approximately $23
million on the early retirement of 1,764 employees taking advantage
of the program. In the 1986-87 program 2,327 employees
participated achieving a savings of over $73 million. It should be
noted that retirement incentive programs are commonly used by
business corporations to attain a more efficient and economic
operation.
"The program established in HB 354 offers three years of service
credited to eligible public school employees facing retirement.
The offer is an inducement to employees near or at retirement
eligibility to terminate their services. The resulting vacancies
allow employers to achieve savings by filing positions with persons
of lower step and pay range, down classing positions, or keeping
positions vacant. A key provision requires agencies to show on a
case by case basis that a three year credited service award would
result in a net personnel services cost savings. It should be
stressed that participation in the program is completely optional
for either the employer or any employee.
"The three year credit must be applied in the following order:
1. To meet the age or service required for eligibility for normal
retirement;
2. to meet the age required for early retirement;
3. to reduce the actuarial adjustment required for early
retirement; and
4. as years of credited service for calculating retirement
benefits.
"An employee awarded the benefit is required to contribute to the
retirement system the amount they would have paid had they
continued working the additional three years. The employer's cost
is the difference between the employee's contribution and the full
actuarial cost of the three year incentive. Thus, the TRS or PERS
retirement system is fully compensated for the effects of an
individual's early termination of service.
"The employer's additional contribution to the retirement system as
well as sharing in other program administration costs are primary
factors in calculating whether a potential early retirement will
result in a net savings and hence qualify. The calculation is
based on a five year time period.
"House Bill 354 has a sunset clause that terminates the incentive
program on July 1, 1998.
"I believe this legislature has to make a serious effort to address
the state's continuing revenue shortfall and the need for long term
financial stability. If education is faced with reduced or frozen
budget funding levels, then we have to give the school districts
the tools to make the necessary adjustments. Otherwise, the
education of Alaska's youth will directly suffer. HB 354 is one of
the tools that can be used to mitigate budget shortfalls and
preserve the excellence in our public school system."
TAPE 96-27, SIDE B
Number 0023
REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE referred the committee members to the survey
by the Alaska Association of School Administrators in their packet
of information. He explained all school districts were surveyed of
which 67 percent of the school districts responded and an
overwhelmingly number responded that they would participate in a
RIP program. He also referred the committee members to an audit
conducted by the Alaska State Legislature, Division of Legislative
Audit, estimating the savings or (costs) by the employer the last
time a RIP program was instituted in 1991. Furthermore, he
referred the committee members to a letter from Lawrence A. Wiget,
Director, Government Relations/Legislative Liaison, Anchorage
School District, that estimated there were at least 600 eligible
teachers to participate in a RIP program calling for a potential of
$12 million in savings. The Anchorage School District had their
own retirement incentive program and it was unclear if the District
would participate at this point, however. He referred the
committee members to a letter from Mary Rubadeau, Superintendent,
Juneau School District, that estimated a saving of $3 million. He
also cited the Hoonah School District estimated a substantial
savings as well. In conclusion, he explained the amendment before
the committee members included the commissioner of education as
part of the reviewing and certification process of a RIP plan
proposed by a school district.
Number 0156
CHAIR JAMES asked, if a school district got its money, up front,
for the three year credit, from the regular formula funding? She
was concerned the state would need to pick-up the remaining money
involved.
Number 0187
REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE replied, once a decision was made to retire
a teacher under a RIP plan, the cost savings depended on who was
hired to replace the retired teacher. There was an obvious savings
if the new teacher was hired at a lower pay scale. Therefore, the
district would have the money saved from that hire to put up front
into the retirement account. He stated a fiscal note was never
considered because of the savings. Furthermore, the teacher would
have to contribute the money up front into the account as well.
Number 0257
CHAIR JAMES asked Representative Mackie if he felt the amendment
before them was needed?
Number 0263
REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE replied, it was not a bad idea. He called it
an extra safeguard. He said, a school district should have a plan
and demonstrate a savings, and if by including the commissioner of
education was necessary to ensure that, then he agreed with the
amendment.
CHAIR JAMES wondered if the state should be the entity telling the
school districts they needed a RIP plan.
Number 0288
REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE replied, HB 354 gave the school districts the
ability to act on a local level. However, it was responsible of
the state to require a demonstration of savings before implementing
a RIP plan.
CHAIR JAMES replied she had more faith in the school district. It
was hard to believe a school district would implement a plan
without demonstrating a savings. She resisted the idea of
including the commissioner of education.
Number 0326
REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE replied some might feel it was one more level
of bureaucracy. He said it really did not matter to him if the
amendment was adopted or not.
Number 0348
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN wondered about a conceptual amendment to
address the cost savings issue to include a provision that did not
allow the re-hire of a teacher with more than three years of
experience, for example. He agreed with the concept of local
control and hoped the local voters would hold their school
districts accountable. However, he wondered about the school
districts that were not closely watched by the local voters and
felt a conceptual amendment would protect those districts.
Number 0411
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER announced he supported the amendment.
Moreover, he commented about specialty positions that required a
high level of qualification, such as a special education teacher.
He wondered how there would be a savings for a district in that
case.
Number 0437
REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE replied he understood Representative Ogan's
concept to require a district to maximize its savings. However, he
would resist going to that extreme. He explained HB 354 was only
a tool for local school districts. A district would know if it was
in its best interest to re-hire a teacher at the low-end of a pay
scale. He did not want to suggest to a school district what was in
its best interest in terms of experience to replace the retired
teacher. That, he said, should be addressed at the local level.
Number 0496
CHAIR JAMES expressed her support for HB 354. However, she was
terrified to hear from teachers in her district that supported a
RIP program because they were "burnt-out." A RIP program should
not be necessary to get rid of teacher who were burnt-out. Local
control was needed to give district the flexibility to manage their
teachers.
Number 0590
REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE replied each district and each employee was
different. He said there were various reasons a teacher could take
advantage of a RIP program. He further said it would be hard for
a district to get rid of a good teacher, and agreed the more local
control the better.
Number 0639
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON reminded the committee members it was the
teacher that would make the decision to approach the school
district to retire.
CHAIR JAMES called on the first witness via teleconference in
Kenai, Steve Wright.
Number 0663
STEVE WRIGHT member of the Kenai Peninsula Educational Support
Association, read the statement from the National Education
Association-Alaska (NEA-Alaska) into the record.
"NEA-Alaska supports utilization of a retirement incentive program
(RIP) as a cost effective means to reduce the overall cost of
school district operation. This cost saving measure is needed
especially at a time when student population is increasing and
inflation continues to chop away at the opportunities schools offer
children. Additional funding is needed to correct the problem but,
in the short term, the RIP provides an option for school districts
to trim already tight budgets.
"In January over 400 NEA-Alaska member delegates attending our
annual Delegate Assembly approved the following legislative
priority: Retirement Incentive Program: NEA-Alaska shall seek
legislation to support the enactment of a retirement incentive
program that is actuarialy sound. Delegates also discussed the
need to make the program available to all school employees in each
school district.
"If it is the intent of the Legislature and the Administration to
reduce the cost of state and local governments, a retirement
incentive program is an excellent opportunity to achieve that goal
without harming employees at the upper or lower ends of the salary
schedule. Absent a RIP, a school district attempting to cut
operating costs through reduction in staff (RIP) would be forced to
lay off less experienced employees. This option creates a hardship
on younger employees and their families and disrupts initial career
goals of these employees.
"Previous RIPs provided certified and non-certified school
employees the benefit of the retirement incentive. Lawmakers have
a history that demonstrates the benefits of RIP to both the
employee and employer.
"NEA-Alaska represents nearly 10,000 members; 2,500 of which are
non-certified Educational Support Personnel. Earlier bills
extended the benefits of RIP to all school employees. We support
the universal application of the RIP to all school employees.
"A retirement incentive program offers school district
administrators an opportunity to retire staff at the top-end of the
salary schedule. Those who retire can be replaced by employees at
a lower position on the salary schedule. If school administration
carefully employs equally qualified but less experienced teachers
and support employees, a school district will net a reduction in
operating costs.
"Previous RIPs offered experienced employees an early retirement
option by providing them a credit of three additional years of
service provided the employer and employee pay the actuarial cost
of that service. Maintaining that option will not encourage large
numbers of experienced school employees to retire since many would
likely retire within three to five years anyway. Furthermore, it
would maintain the strength of the retirement system for present
and future generations of retirees.
"We support a retirement incentive plan that is universal in
nature. State and local governments, including school districts,
can utilize a RIP to achieve cost savings in fair way to both the
employer and employee. A RIP is a way to address the economic
uncertainty many school districts face. The legislation presents
an equitable and fair plan for the employees of Alaska's schools
and state government to retire during periods of economic
uncertainty."
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in Mat-
Su, Lucy Hope.
Number 0885
LUCY HOPE, President, Mat-Su Education Association, said the
Association represented 852 school teachers in the Mat-Su School
District. She said the District was currently facing budget
difficulties. She recently received formal notification to lay-off
every non-tenure school teacher, approximately 170 teachers. The
RIP program was a good way to alleviate those concerns, she said.
The salary schedule was built so that beginning teachers made about
one-half of what most experiences teachers made. The last time the
District participated in a RIP program 26 teachers retired, double
the number of teachers hired in a given school year, and the
District saved over one-half million dollars over three years. She
called the RIP program a humane way to deal with the budget
difficulties a district was faced with. She supported HB 354 as a
tool for school districts to use to maintain the integrity of the
schools.
Number 0983
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Ms. Hope if the teachers were hired at a
lower salary because of seniority or because of a different pay
tier?
Number 1006
MS. HOPE replied a teacher was hired at a lower salary because of
the number of years of experience and education the teacher brought
to the District. The only way a teacher could be hired at the same
salary as the retired teacher was if he or she had taught in Alaska
for the same number of years. She explained the local negotiated
agreement recognized only four years of out-of-state experience,
and the actual number of years of Alaska experience.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN thanked Ms. Hope for the clarification.
Number 1051
REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE asked Ms. Hope how many teachers received a
lay-off notice?
MS. HOPE replied 170 teachers. She stated she only received a
formal notification and the teachers had yet to receive their
individual letters of notification.
Number 1070
REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE wondered if the notices were sent to clear
the books so the school district was not saddled with additional
tenured teachers.
Number 1080
MS. HOPE said the budget would probably not be finalized by the
last day of school and by statute that was the last opportunity the
District had to lay-off employees. The formal notification was
necessary because of the negotiated agreement that required a
notification by March 1. She said the District planned to recall
a number of the teachers based on qualifications.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness in Juneau, Gary Bader.
Number 1116
GARY BADER, Administrative Services Director, Juneau School
District, said the District supported HB 354. He said in terms of
the repayment, the District calculated the savings made on each
teacher. The current contract for the Juneau School District
limited a new teacher to bring four years of service to the
District. He said, according to HB 354, a district did not have to
start repaying until the second year after retirement, reserving a
portion of the first year of savings while the rest would be
available for the general expenditures of the school district. He
reiterated the District favored HB 354 and hoped it would be passed
out of committee today.
Number 1176
REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE said the Juneau School District had a higher
number of teachers at the top-end of the salary range compared to
the other districts. He asked Mr. Bader if he knew the exact
number of teachers at the higher-end of the salary range?
MR. BADER replied the District estimated about 60 teachers would
participate in a RIP program. However, not all were vested in the
system. He reiterated the District had 60 eligible participants.
Number 1205
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked Mr. Bader his opinion regarding the
proposed amendment.
Number 1214
MR. BADER replied the District did not have a difficulty with the
proposed amendment. He said the bill already contained provisions
to ensure there was a savings, however. He felt certain the Juneau
School District RIP Plan would pass any scrutiny.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness in Juneau, Vernon Marshall.
Number 1238
VERNON MARSHALL, Executive Director, National Education
Association-Alaska (NEA-Alaska), said the reality was echoed by
Representative Mackie that many districts were experiencing frozen
funding levels. He explained, due to inflation and demands for new
programs from the state and federal governments, an immense amount
of pressure was put on the employees. He called a RIP program a
safety valve to relieve the pressure, and HB 354 was a step in the
right direction.
Number 1376
CHAIR JAMES said it was costly to incorporate new programs demanded
from the state and federal governments. It was the biggest
contributor to the raising cost of education, and she did not see
evidence of any improvement in the system. She asked Mr. Marshall
to respond to her statements.
Number 1423
MR. MARSHALL said the question of who would pay for a new program
needed to be answered first. He called it the mission for public
education. He said 1996 presented various problems relative to
children and the issues brought to the classrooms, and cited
students having babies as an example. He said there were a lot of
frustrated teachers who wanted to do more, but because of the
demands and limited resources they were not able to.
Number 1578
CHAIR JAMES said the reasons why a RIP program was needed was also
necessary to discuss. She commented the schools were expected to
address social issues and suggested funding them with social money
as opposed to education money. She said the schools were getting
a "bad rap" because they were expected to be parents, social
workers, and police officers, for example.
Number 1671
MR. MARSHALL agreed with the comments of Chair James. He further
said HB 354 addressed the economic issues and was a mechanism to
save districts money.
Number 1742
CHAIR JAMES said it was important to keep the title of HB 354 tight
for support.
Number 1762
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Mr. Marshall what he contributed the
inflation issue to discussed earlier?
Number 1812
MR. MARSHALL replied the inflation was the same that everyone
experienced and was a factor that the school district absorbed. He
cited school districts operated on a funding unit of $61,000. He
said, if it was adjusted, it was worth much less. Therefore, the
districts had to pay to react to the new demands. He called the
bill a safety valve to allow districts to let-off steam.
Number 2017
CHAIR JAMES agreed with Mr. Marshall about inflation. She said it
did not relate to real income and was a serious problem.
Number 2049
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he was concerned about the causes of
inflation. He said one of the biggest problem with inflation were
the negotiated salaries. He said he supported full funding for
education last year, but felt it was time the districts started
talking about why a RIP program was necessary. He stated the
private sector absorbed inflation. He said he would support HB 354
because it would help his district, and asked Mr. Marshall to be
realistic about the future salary demands.
Number 2160
MR. MARSHALL said he would be glad to provide a break down of the
salaries negotiated. He said the salary increases were about 2
percent. A report indicated from the University of Alaska that
Alaska ranked 14th in America for inflation adjusted salaries. He
said he did not see that the school districts were causing the
academic inflation.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness in Juneau, Steve McPhetres.
Number 2280
STEVE MCPHETRES, Executive Director, Alaska Council of School
Administrators, said the Council represented 600 school
administrators and business officials across Alaska. He said the
Council supported HB 354 as another tool to balance the budgets.
He explained there would be a substantial savings per teacher, if
the district hired an employee at the low end of the pay scale. He
said it was also an opportunity to hire more faculty as the
classrooms continued to grow in size because of the money saved.
Number 2456
REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE thanked Mr. Mcphetres for his work done in
support of HB 354.
Number 2480
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved to adopt Amendment 1. Hearing no
objection, it was so adopted.
TAPE 96-28, SIDE A
Number 0000
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said some school districts needed help with
their numbers, therefore, he supported the amendment. He said he
did not see it as an infringement.
Number 0095
CHAIR JAMES said a school district should not have to be overseen
because it was suppose to house the smartest people in the state.
Number 0132
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he agreed with Chair James. He said he
would support Amendment 1 because of accountability for districts
that were not as responsible or careful.
Number 0216
CHAIR JAMES disagreed with Representative Ogan for the record.
Number 0238
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved that CSHB 354(STA) move from the
committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal
notes. Representative Ogan objected.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in Kenai,
Walt Bromenschenkel.
WALT BROMENSCHENKEL said in 1986 and 1987, 39 employees chose to
participate in the RIP program in Kenai; and in 1989 and 1990,
about 43 employees chose to participate in the RIP program which
generated over $800,000 in savings. Furthermore, HB 354 would
allow money to be redirected to the education of the students. He
was pleased with the motion to pass the bill out of the committee.
Number 0436
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN explained he objected to the motion for the
sake of further discussion. He said he supported HB 354 because he
recognized the problems in his district. He hoped districts would
look at local management further to hire personnel in a cost
effective manner, however. He said he trusted his district to
address the problems and hoped the bill would alleviate the major
crisis back home.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN removed his objection.
CHAIR JAMES responded hearing no further objection, CSHB 354(STA)
moved from the House State Affairs Committee.
Number 0512
CHAIR JAMES temporarily adjourned the House State Affairs Committee
at 9:45 a.m.
TAPE 96-29, SIDE A
Number 0000
CHAIR JAMES opened the House State Affairs Committee meeting again
at 9:50 a.m. to discuss the next items on the agenda.
HB 368 - ELECTION CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM
HB 317 - ELECTION CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM
The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Committee was HB 368 and HB 317.
Number 0150
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN referred the committee members to the
committee substitute 9-LS1260/F. He said the committee substitute
attempted to incorporate the recommendations of the House State
Affairs Committee, the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC),
Senators, and public comments. He said there were 30 amendments to
the initiative and HB 368. The initiative remained substantially
the same, however. He stated the amendments strengthened,
broadened or liberalized the provisions and were in the best
interest of public policy.
Number 0257
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER wondered if Representative Finkelstein
conferred with Mike Frank, Chair, Campaign Finance Reform Now, and
asked if he shared the same conclusion?
Number 0276
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said Mr. Frank had been involved. He
would not say if it was or was not substantially the same because
it was beyond his ability. He said Mr. Frank was concerned about
the final product. The subject areas addressed were appropriate
for the legislature to consider and were reasonable public policy
debates. He said Mr. Frank was aware of the amendments and
suggested including him at the next hearing.
Number 0365
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he was not asking for a legal opinion,
if it was substantially the same. He wondered if Mr. Frank would
advertise against the committee substitute as written.
Number 0390
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN suggested asking Mr. Frank directly. He
further said Mr. Frank was comfortable with the approach
represented in the committee substitute. He reiterated the
amendments were reasonable areas for debate.
Number 0432
CHAIR JAMES said she was concerned about "clamping-down" so far
that only those with their own money could participate. She said
the best way to deal directly with this issue was to make sure the
public knew about the APOC reporting requirements.
CHAIR JAMES asked Representative Finkelstein to explain the
amendments.
Number 0561
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN explained Amendment 1 deleted the
indexing only of contribution limits. He called it a technical
amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN explained Amendment 2 was a technical
correction to clarify the registration of a contribution. He said
it was not the intent of the initiative to require an individual
toregister before making a contribution. He called it an odd
section and said it should have been drafted better. He further
explained it was a change to current law.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN explained Amendment 3 returned the
contribution limit back to $100 as written in the existing law.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN explained Amendment 4 adopted the
approach of the legislature for honorariums rather than the
approach in the initiative.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN explained Amendment 5 shortened the fund
raising period in the beginning and increased it towards the end.
The beginning period for a legislative race was June 1. The
beginning period for a statewide race was January 1, and for all
other races, five months before the date of the election. He said
this area was controversial. The amendment strengthened the
initiative. It was bound by constitutional limitations, however.
A longer period as in the initiative was more likely to survive a
constitutional challenge. He explained the amendment did not limit
the funds raised, just the period of fund raising. He reiterated
the issue was problematic due to past court cases.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN explained Amendment 6 allowed
contributions from out-of-state family members of up to $2,000 for
a House race, $3,000 for a Senate race, and $20,000 for a statewide
race.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN explained Amendment 7 was a request by
APOC to reduce paperwork.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN explained Amendment 8 was a conforming
amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN explained Amendment 9 allowed for the
repayment of surplus contributions in approximate proportions.
This was not allowed in the initiative. He said a carry forward
was limited to $5,000 for a House race, $7,500 for a Senate race,
and $50,000 for a statewide race. He further explained the
amendment allowed some money to be put into an office fund.
Disclosure would be necessary to meet certain standards to ensure
it was not used for personal use, however.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN explained Amendment 10 simplified the
initiative. The initiative applied aggravating and mitigating
criminal factors, and state of mind, for APOC to apply certain
penalties. The amendment included the higher maximums when acted
knowingly. Furthermore, he said APOC knew how to determine the
difference between an intentional and an accidental late filing
action.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN explained Amendment 11 inserted the
definition of a political party. He said it was a clarification
based on complaints from the Libertarian Party. The Party was
concerned it would be considered a group rather than a party. The
definition was expanded to include 3 percent of the votes in the
past five governor elections. The definition, if adopted, would
increase the official parties to five. They were: the Green,
Libertarian, Democratic, Republican and AIP Parties.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN explained Amendment 12 was based on
discussions to reduce the penalties. The initiative included a
felony penalty for intentional violations. The amendment changed
it to a misdemeanor.
Number 1102
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if the expansion of the political party
definition in Amendment 11 brought in any more political parties
besides the Libertarian Party?
Number 1140
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN replied he did not remember any more.
He reiterated the amendment was based on a complaint from the
Libertarian Party.
Number 1152
CHAIR JAMES commented if there were any more parties out there,
they probably were not a threat to campaign finance reform.
Number 1160
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN replied Amendment 11 was a reasonable
compromise. He did believe, however, that at some time a party did
become a group.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN moving forward explained Amendment 13
removed the 24 hour reporting requirement for expenditures from
law. Currently, the Commission did not require it, and the bill,
he said, did not want to interfere with the reporting concepts.
This was based on a recommendation from APOC.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN explained Amendment 14 removed the
requirement for a group to report a contribution worth over $250.
This was based on a recommendation from APOC.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN explained Amendment 15 was a conforming
amendment to a Supreme Court decision. The amendment set the limit
at $250 for an individual to use expenditures to advertise in a
newspaper, for example.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN explained Amendment 16 attempted to
define a public funded entity to mean, a state, a political
subdivision, and a state-funded agency. This was based on a
recommendation from Jack Chenoweth, Attorney, Legislative Legal and
Research Services.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN explained Amendment 17 deleted "one-
half" and inserted "one-third" of expenditures in support or in
opposition to a candidate, was needed to include the name of the
candidate as part of the name of the group. This was based on a
recommendation from APOC.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN explained Amendment 18 allowed political
parties and their subdivisions to pass money among themselves.
This was not allowed in the initiative because they organized as
separate groups, whereas, the amendment viewed them as
interconnected.
Number 1446
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked, if Amendment 18 were adopted, could
anyone who described himself as a subgroup, be treated as part of
the party?
Number 1469
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN replied, "no." He explained the
definition or status of a subgroup derived from the party.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked where was that explained in the bill?
Number 1532
JACK CHENOWETH, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative
Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, referred
the committee members to page 24, lines 12 - 13, which read "to
include a subordinate unit of the organized group of voters
qualifying a political party." He said the initiative did not
address the relationship between the main party and subordinates.
The amendment, therefore, clarified the relationship between the
two.
Number 1605
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked what the individual subordinate units
could do to raise their own funds, and to distribute their own
funds to candidates. He wondered if the contribution limit of
$10,000 was treated individually or cumulatively.
Number 1667
MR. CHENOWETH asked Representative Porter if the groups were
treated as a subordinate unit?
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER replied some were and some were not.
Number 1658
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN replied, if the party claimed them as a
subordinate unit, it would fit under the party limits.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER wondered where that was addressed in the
bill.
Number 1667
MR. CHENOWETH replied, it was not addressed in the bill. Language
would be needed to clarify that issue.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN suggested it could be clarified on page
24, line 12, to read, "to include a subordinate unit as determined
by the qualifying party."
Number 1689
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER commented the bill should say what we mean.
Number 1697
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN replied, in defense of the language, the
party itself would answer the question, if a subordinate unit was
part of the party.
Number 1729
CHAIR JAMES said the bottom line was the contribution. The
contributions would need to be tallied from all the subdivisions to
determine they did not go over the maximum. Furthermore, she was
concerned it would leave groups out of the decision making process.
Number 1835
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked how a party determined if a subgroup
was officially part of the party? He also asked if a subgroup that
was part of the party could give an additional $10,000? He lastly
asked if the subgroup was a group could it give an additional $250?
Number 1870
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN replied he would suggest an amendment to
resolve this issue so that the parent party would decide who became
part of the party.
Number 1887
CHAIR JAMES said the District 34 Republicans were considered a
subdivision because the chair was elected and a member of the
statewide central committee. The Lincoln Society, on the other
hand, was an affiliate. The Lincoln Society was a fund raising
group only. She called the Lincoln Society a group and said it was
limited to the provisions under a group in the initiative and the
bill.
Number 1968
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if the committee substitute raised the
limits on groups also?
Number 1975
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN replied, it returned the limits to the
existing law, $1,000. He further said the committee substitute
addressed the issue of subordinates fitting under the overall
limits. Furthermore, a group could decide to organize as a group
or a party under the current law, the initiative and the bills.
Therefore, the Lincoln Society had a choice to be a group or a
party. Right now it was treated as a subgroup of the party
according to APOC. He said most groups would chose to remain part
of the party due to the $10,000 limit for a House race, $15,000 for
a Senate race, and $200,000 for a statewide race. He said there
were very few races where the limits had been reached in the past.
He reiterated the choice could not be controlled, however.
Number 2059
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked where it was addressed in the bill?
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN replied page 24, lines 12 - 13. The
language addressed the total limit under the party.
Number 2084
CHAIR JAMES replied the Lincoln Society was not part of the party
in her opinion because it was a select group of people who chose to
be a society, whereas the party itself was elected by the people.
Number 2097
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN replied, "right," because the Republican
Party accepted them and allowed them to operate as a party
subdivision now. The choice would be the same under the
initiative.
Number 2111
CHAIR JAMES suggested further discussion with the Democratic and
Republican Parties was needed.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said the parties did not like a limit on
any contribution amount.
Number 2134
CHAIR JAMES said all contributions should come directly from the
parties for grass root politics and support. She said a limit
should be left to special interests and individuals and not to the
parties.
Number 2211
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said the committee substitute tried to
raise the limits.
CHAIR JAMES replied the limits were fine. She said she was opposed
to the idea of limiting.
Number 2258
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN responded limits were included because
of the fear of laundering money through the party. He said the
parties would do great under the proposed system because the bulk
of the $500 to $1,000 contributions would probably go to the party
due to the restrictions on individual contributions. Therefore,
the total amount of money would probably decrease, but the amount
of money going to the parties would probably increase.
Number 2300
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked Representative Finkelstein what the
bill did again to the contribution limits?
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said he would answer that question as he
explained the amendments further.
Number 2318
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN moving forward explained Amendment 19
fixed a technical mistake.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN explained Amendment 20 conformed to a
previous provision related to a Supreme Court decision.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN explained Amendment 21 changed the
effective date to January 1, 1997.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN explained Amendment 22 incorporated
provisions from the charitable gaming bill recently passed in the
House of Representatives, excluding the raffle provision.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN explained Amendment 23 allowed out-of-
state contributions of up to $2,000 for a House race, $3,000 for a
Senate race, and $20,000 for a statewide race.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN explained Amendment 24 increased the
maximum contribution limit from a party to a candidate to $10,000
for a House race, and $15,000 for a Senate race.
Number 2390
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if Amendment 23 included individual
contributions?
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN replied Amendment 23 allowed
contributions from individuals from out-of-state.
CHAIR JAMES explained it was the cumulative amount.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN moving forward explained Amendment 25
increased the contribution amount from a group to a candidate from
"$500" to "$1,000." A return to current law.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN explained Amendment 26 set the maximum
contribution limit at $1,000 from a group to another group. This
was not allowed under the initiative.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN explained Amendment 27 allowed the
governor and lieutenant governor to raise money during the
legislative session immediately prior to an election.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN explained Amendment 28 included a delay
of 60 days before going to court for a citizen suit after a
complaint was filed with APOC. This was to eliminate last minute
publicity.
TAPE 96-29, SIDE B
Number 0000
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN explained Amendment 29 expanded the
exemption for small campaigns to apply to municipal races. The
approach was expanded to $2,500 for both contributions and
expenditures in an attempt to reduce paperwork.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN explained Amendment 30 attempted to
reduce the conflicts if the bill and the initiative were both
passed. This, was only an issue, however, if they were
substantially different.
Number 0093
CHAIR JAMES said HB 368 and HB 317 were scheduled again for
Saturday, March 9, 1996. She asked what was the will of the
committee members. She commented the next committee of referral
was the House Judiciary Committee.
Number 0116
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked what was the progress of SB 191? He
stated he was concerned about the time remaining, and suggested a
push for Saturday.
CHAIR JAMES asked the committee members to study the committee
substitute carefully before the next hearing.
Number 0143
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked what the limits were for individuals
and groups? He said a group was defined as a political action
committee (PAC). He commented only individuals could give to PACs
and only individuals and PACs could give to parties. He asked
again what were the limitations on giving to a party?
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN replied, the contribution limits were
$5,000 from an individual and $1,000 from a group. Under the
initiative, however, it was $5,000 from an individual and $0 from
anybody else.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said an individual could give $5,000 to a
party. He further asked how much an individual could give to a
PAC?
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN replied $250.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said a PAC could give $1,000 to a party.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN replied a PAC could give $1,000 to a
candidate. He said he did not like the word "PAC" because it had
a federal definition that was not being followed. For this reason
he preferred the word "group" instead.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said the public understood the word "PAC"
better than the word "group." A group could be viewed as the local
Parent Teacher Association (PTA).
Number 0235
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said it was a loaded word and was viewed
negatively.
Number 0255
CHAIR JAMES replied she did not like them as PACs or as groups, but
understood the Supreme Court decision that allowed them.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said it was a technicality.
Number 0258
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON suggested a comparison of the provisions
for the next hearing of the current law, the initiative, and the
committee substitute.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said he could provide that for the next
hearing on Saturday, March 9, 1996.
Number 0285
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if the committee substitute had been
adopted for consideration.
CHAIR JAMES replied, "no." She said it would be adopted on
Saturday when there was a full committee present.
Number 0292
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIR JAMES adjourned the House State Affairs Committee meeting at
10:45 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|