Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/21/1996 08:00 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 21, 1996
8:00 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jeannette James, Chair
Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chair
Representative Joe Green
Representative Ivan Ivan
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Caren Robinson
Representative Ed Willis
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present.
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
* HOUSE BILL NO. 345
"An Act relating to the procurement of investment and brokerage
services by the Alaska State Pension Investment Board."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 371
"An Act relating to the rights of terminally ill persons."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 383
"An Act relating to reimbursement by the state to municipalities
and certain established villages for services provided to
individuals incapacitated by alcohol; and providing for an
effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 304
"An Act relating to geographic differentials for the salaries of
certain state employees who are not members of a collective
bargaining unit; relating to periodic salary surveys and
preparation of an annual pay schedule regarding certain state
employees; relating to certain state aid calculations based on
geographic differentials for state employee salaries; and providing
for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 47
Supporting continued funding of the Alaska National Guard Youth
Corps Challenge Program.
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 422
"An Act prohibiting the adoption of regulations by an agency of the
executive branch of state government, annulling all regulations
adopted by an agency of the executive branch, repealing provisions
of the Administrative Procedure Act, and relating to additional
legislation to carry out the purposes of this Act; and providing
for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
(* First public action)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 345
SHORT TITLE: PENSION INVESTMENT BOARD PROCUREMENTS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) FOSTER
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
05/10/95 2088 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
05/10/95 2088 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, L&C, FINANCE
03/21/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 371
SHORT TITLE: RIGHTS OF TERMINALLY ILL PERSONS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) BROWN, TOOHEY, Finkelstein, Davies
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
12/29/95 2363 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/08/96 2363 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/08/96 2363 (H) HES, STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY
02/06/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/06/96 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/13/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/13/96 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/20/96 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/20/96 (H) MINUTE(HES)
02/21/96 2827 (H) HES RPT CS(HES) 1DP 2DNP 3NR
02/21/96 2827 (H) DP: TOOHEY
02/21/96 2827 (H) DNP: G.DAVIS, ROKEBERG
02/21/96 2827 (H) NR: BUNDE, ROBINSON, BRICE
02/21/96 2827 (H) 2 FISCAL NOTES (2-DHSS)
02/21/96 2827 (H) REFERRED TO STATE AFFAIRS
03/19/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/19/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/21/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
JOHN WALSH, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Richard Foster
State Capitol, Room 410
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-3789
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor statement for HB 345.
JIM CRAWFORD, President and Chief Executive Officer
City Commerce Corporation
9521 Spring Hill Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99509
Telephone: (907) 563-9683
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 345.
DAVID SCHWANTES
8148 East 4th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99504
Telephone: (907) 333-1327
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 345.
DENNIS MILLHOUSE, Owner
Trend Setters School of Beauty
407 East Northern Lights Blvd.
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Telephone: (907) 274-7150
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HB 345.
GAYLE HARBO
820 Red Poll Lane
P.O. Box 10210
Fairbanks, Alaska 99710
Telephone: (907) 457-7815
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 345.
GARY BADER, Chairman
Alaska State Pension Investment Board
P.O. Box 22304
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 463-1700 x 239
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 345.
MICHAEL KIRK
1718 Evergreen Avenue
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-4318
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 345.
ROBERT D. STORER, Chief Investment Officer
Treasury Division
Department of Revenue
P.O. Box 110405
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0405
Telephone: (907) 465-4399
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 345.
JOHN CYR, Vice President
National Education Association - Alaska
P.O. Box 2776
Palmer, Alaska 99774
Telephone: (907) 745-2015
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 345.
RAYMOND J. ELLIS, Certified Public Accountant
Raymond J. Ellis
1500 West 33rd Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Telephone: (907) 274-5537
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HB 345.
SCOTT JOHANNES, President
Criterion General Inc.
8221 Dimond Hook Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99507
Telephone: (907) 344-3200
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 345.
DAVID GOTTSTEIN, President
Dynamic Capital Management, Inc.
471 West 36th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Telephone: (907) 562-6374
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 345.
BOB BELL
2610 Curlew Circle
Anchorage, Alaska 99515
Telephone: (907) 274-5257
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 345.
MANO FREY, Trustee
Alaska Laborers - Employers Retirement Fund
13500 Old Seward Highway
Anchorage, Alaska 99515
Telephone: (907) 345-4429
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HB 345.
REPRESENTATIVE KAY BROWN
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 517
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-4998
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 371.
SYLVIA SHORT, Member
Alaskans For Death With Dignity
705 West 47th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Telephone: (907) 562-4992
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HB 371.
AL SUNDQUIST
3384 Mt. Vernon Court
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Telephone: (907) 562-7522
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HB 371.
LYNN STIMLER, Executive Director
American Civil Liberties Union - Alaska Affiliate (ACLU)
P.O. Box 201844
Anchorage, Alaska 99520
Telephone: (907) 258-0044
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HB 371.
JANET OATES, Director of Marketing and Government/Community
Relations
Providence Health System - Alaska
P.O. Box 199604
Anchorage, Alaska 99514
Telephone: (907) 261-4946
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 371.
ARTHUR CURTIS
1605 Sitka, Number 203
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 272-7360
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 371.
KENT AUTOR
4010 Piper Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
Telephone: (907) 562-5795
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HB 371.
CHARLES ABBOTT
P.O. Box 1434
Delta Junction, Alaska 99737
Telephone: (907) 895-1098
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 371.
JIM EDE
2420 Davis Road
Wasilla, Alaska 99654
Telephone: (907) 376-4631
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HB 371.
LINDA WAHL
P.O. Box 770
Dillingham, Alaska 99576
Telephone: (907) 842-5618
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 371.
BRUCE GORDON
P.O. Box 80046
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
Telephone: (907) 479-6988
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HB 371.
VICKY LAWYER
P.O. Box 58527
Fairbanks, Alaska 99711
Telephone: (907) 488-6726
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HB 371.
AL BOWLING
P.O. Box 390
Kotzebue, Alaska 99603
Telephone: Not provided.
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HB 371.
CHRISTINA PERRIGO
301 Wortman Loop
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Telephone: (907) 747-8948
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 371.
LLOYD PERRIGO
301 Wortman Loop
Sitka, Alaska 99835
Telephone: (907) 747-8948
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 371.
RENEE MURRAY
605 West 42nd Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Telephone: (907) 561-8796
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HB 371.
BEVERLY HAYWOOD, Co-chairperson
Juneau Unitarian Fellowship
985 Mendenhall Peninsula Road
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 790-4069
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HB 371.
RITCHIE SONNER, Executive Director
Hospice and Home Care - Juneau
3200 Hospital Drive, Number 100
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 463-3113
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 371.
FRANCIS T. HURLEY, Archbishop
Archdiocese of Anchorage
600 West 11th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 274-8358
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 371.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-38, SIDE A
Number 0000
The House State Affairs Committee was called to order by Chair
Jeannette James at 8:00 a.m. Members present at the call to order
were Representatives Willis, Porter, Green, Ivan and James.
Members absent were Representatives Ogan and Robinson.
HB 345 - PENSION INVESTMENT BOARD PROCUREMENTS
The first order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Committee was HB 345.
CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES called on John Walsh, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Richard Foster, to present the sponsor statement.
Number 0050
JOHN WALSH, Legislative Assistant to Representative Richard Foster,
read the following statement into the record.
"HB 345; An Act Relating to the Procurement of Investment and
Brokerage Services by the Alaska State Pension Investment Board.
"House Bill 345 simply requires that the Alaska Pension Investment
Board `increase the utilization of brokerage and investment
services provided by persons located in the state to at least seven
percent of the brokerage services procured by the board.'
Additionally, there is a provision to allow the board to `opt' out
upon a written finding that the seven percent goal is unattainable.
"In support of the bill, I would merely reiterate the findings
section of the legislation wherein the case is made for a healthy,
competitive private sector; the need to review state procurement
practices and support a local procurement process; and most
importantly, the need for all state agencies and state resources to
be directed toward improving the statewide economy.
"For the record, it is not the intent of the sponsor to jeopardize
in any way the integrity of these investment funds."
MR. WALSH said he would be available for any questions.
CHAIR JAMES called on the first witness in Juneau, Jim Crawford.
Number 0341
JIM CRAWFORD, President and Chief Executive Officer, City Commerce
Corporation, referred the committee members to a graph titled,
"Alaska's Economy since Statehood - Employment." He explained
employment was the best way to judge an economy on a statewide
basis. There were many misconceptions about Alaska's economy,
therefore, affecting the stability of instate investments. The
graph indicated employment was a continual plot for Alaska.
MR. CRAWFORD further referred the committee members to a graph
titled, "Employment - Trendlines: 1978 - 1994 (Alaska, Texas,
California and New York.)" The trend line for Alaska was more
positive compared to the other states.
MR. CRAWFORD further referred the committee members to a graph
titled, "Employment - Actual: 1978 - 1994 (Alaska, Texas,
California and New York.)" The graph indicated a cyclical economy
for all the states. This was contrary to popular belief that
Alaska's economy was more cyclical than other states.
MR. CRAWFORD further referred the committee members to a graph
titled, "Housing - Trendlines: 1985 - 1994 (Anchorage, Dallas, Los
Angeles and New York.)" The graph indicated a greater housing risk
in the other cities compared to Anchorage.
MR. CRAWFORD further referred the committee members to a graph
titled, "State of Alaska Permanent Fund - Income and State Oil
Revenues."
MR. CRAWFORD referred to a handout titled, "State of Washington -
State Investment Board Real Estate Investment Plan." He explained
Washington cut back their allocation of real estate from 78 percent
to 44 percent. The state of Washington invested in its own state
and region. The state of Oregon put mortgage money into the state
alone. The state of Texas put 50 percent of its entire fund into
real estate instate. There was a pattern in other states to
support the local economy with an excellent return.
MR. CRAWFORD further referred to a handout titled, "Apartment
Financing Comparison." He suggested reducing apartment rates by 15
percent to connect Alaska to long-term money. Alaska's apartments
and commercial buildings were financed on short-term loans with
short amortization and higher interest rates, by 2.5 percent.
MR. CRAWFORD asked the committee members to pass the bill forward
to the House Finance Committee for further consideration. He
called the bill a critical component to expand the local economy.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness in Juneau, David Schwantes.
Number 0695
DAVID SCHWANTES expressed his opposition to HB 345. He said
currently, if a person wanted to make a presentation to the board,
he was allowed. Furthermore, to require a 7 percent investment was
a disservice. The board was elected to do the best job that it
could do. Therefore, if a presentation was made and the board felt
it was good for the people, it would be adopted.
MR. SCHWANTES referred the committee members to page 2, lines 30 -
31; and page 3, lines 1 - 2, and read, "unless the board makes a
written finding that the board is unable to meet this goal because
there is insufficient number of persons with the requisite skill in
the state to perform the service." He said there were many people
in Alaska that had the skill, but he wondered if they provided the
best quality. He reiterated the board would accept a presentation
if it was the best quality for the people that it served. The
bill, however, would require the use of that investment, even if
there was a better one. Therefore, he reiterated, he was opposed
to HB 345.
Number 0860
CHAIR JAMES stated she was surprised to hear testimony against HB
345 because the public expressed dissatisfaction that funds were
not being invested in the state. She wondered, if Mr. Schwantes
had any confidence in the state, according to his testimony
regarding the requisite skills. She commented 7 percent was not
very much.
Number 0896
MR. SCHWANTES replied he did have confidence in the board that was
elected to invest the funds. Therefore, if the board made a
decision to invest in the state, that was fine. The board had the
skills to determine if a presentation was of quality and best
represented the people.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness in Juneau, Dennis Millhouse.
Number 0959
DENNIS MILLHOUSE, Owner, Trend Setters School of Beauty, expressed
his support of HB 345. It was time that Alaskan money was
reinvested in Alaska. He explained he got caught in the economic
downturn in the late 1980's and had yet to recover. He said he
hoped the bill passed so that the people who lived in Alaska and
made their money in Alaska could reinvest in Alaska. He did not
leave Alaska when he encountered his problems because Alaska was
his home. He asked the state to loosen up and to reinvest its
money to make Alaska better.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness in Juneau, Gayle Harbo.
Number 1222
GAYLE HARBO stated it was important that the board be allowed to
invest the money in the best way possible to get the best return.
Currently, there was not anything that prevented the board from
investing 7 percent, or more, in the state of Alaska. The board
was the expert, so let the board decide. She expressed her
opposition to HB 345.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness in Juneau, Gary Bader.
Number 1292
GARY BADER, Chairman, Alaska State Pension Investment Board
(ASPIB), explained the board was comprised of eight members - four
were elected by the beneficiaries and four were appointed by the
Governor. Two of the current members were appointed by Governor
Hickel then reappointed by Governor Knowles. The board was
interested in serving the best interest of the participants in the
system. The participants were: for example, retirees, potential
beneficiaries, and public entities. Moreover, the returns of the
system were of a vital interest to the employee's level of comfort.
It was also important to the political subdivisions that were
assessed based on the earnings of the fund. If the fund did not
earn as it should, the contribution rates of employers tended to go
up over time. Moreover, the board created a mechanism where all of
the equity trades were reported to the brokers in Alaska. It was
not up to the board, however, to see that the check went directly
to the brokers. He said there was an interest to invest in Alaska.
The board would consider an investment in Alaska that was in the
best interest of the fund. Lastly, he believed there were ways
that Alaska benefitted from investments in Alaska. He cited the
Alaska Housing Finance Corporation that ensured investments were
placed in areas of general need.
Number 1435
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER said he did not see language in the
bill that indicated 7 percent of the investment should go towards
improving Alaska. The language only indicated that 7 percent of
the investment services the board procured should be brokeraged
through the local brokerage services.
Number 1453
MR. BADER stated the bill did not require investment in Alaska as
Representative Porter indicated. He was responding to earlier
testimony that inferred there was a linkage between investment in
Alaska and HB 345.
Number 1464
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he assumed that there was a linkage. A
local investor would have better knowledge of prudent investments
in Alaska compared to an investor in New York, for example. He
reiterated he did not see language in the bill that indicated this
would jeopardize money.
Number 1481
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked Mr. Bader how much of the Alaska
State Pension Investment Board's portfolio was invested in Alaska
now?
Number 1485
MR. BADER replied a very small amount of the portfolio was invested
in Alaska now.
Number 1512
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Mr. Bader if investments were not made
in Alaska because they were shakier, or the return was not as good,
for example?
Number 1522
MR. BADER replied he did not say the ASPIB would not invest
locally. He explained an investment allocation was based upon the
risk characteristics of the fund. The fund had not called for an
increased allocation in real estate or mortgages, therefore, the
other investments tended to be stocks and bonds, which were not
instate investments.
Number 1550
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN agreed with the remarks of Representative
Porter. The bill simply increased the board's utilization of
brokerage and investment firms that were based in Alaska or Alaskan
owned. The board could still make the calls to invest wherever it
wanted. He wondered how good the investors were in Alaska. He
asked, are they capable and competent enough to invest properly?
Number 1593
MR. BADER stated that question would be better put to the Chief
Investment Officer, Robert Storer, who would testify shortly.
Number 1601
CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Bader, what brokerage firms did the board
normally use when looking to invest?
Number 1608
MR. BADER replied a brokerage firm was normally selected in terms
of stocks by the investment manager engaged. Furthermore, the
pension fund had directed a mechanism to recapture some of the
commissions back to the fund as opposed to the investment manager,
for example.
Number 1635
CHAIR JAMES wondered if the fund was its own broker.
Number 1638
MR. BADER responded the fund was using another broker, but there
was an arrangement for discounts. That did not cover the entire
fund, however.
CHAIR JAMES asked if that was a local broker or a broker outside of
the state?
MR. BADER replied that was a broker outside of the state.
Number 1651
CHAIR JAMES asserted herein lied the problem. If Alaska could keep
the money instate, it would not be having the financial dilemma
now. She never failed to hear the people wonder why the state did
not invest its own money in Alaska. She reiterated the 7 percent
brokerage requirement in the bill was not an unreasonable request.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next in Juneau, Michael J. Kirk.
Number 1717
MICHAEL J. KIRK said he was here today on behalf of retired
teachers, state employees, municipal employees and the people. He
said, "If I told you how to invest the money in the piggy bank of
your children, you'd be outraged." The tradition in this country
was a free economy. There were no special privileges in the
investment game. There was, however, in the Alaska State
Constitution a prudent investor clause, of which you, the
legislators, had sworn to uphold. Furthermore, he explained he had
followed approximately 250 to 300 corruption pension fund cases of
which the same type of pleading was heard today. He said he would
love to see the money invested in the state, but not somebody
else's money. "You invest your own money, they invest their own
money, and I'll be darned if they tell me how to invest my
savings." He referred the committee members to his handout on the
Robin E. Ward's opinion column in the Anchorage Daily News and
urged them to read it. He reiterated, until the prudent investor
clause was changed in the Alaska State Constitution, the committee
members would be violating their loyalty to it.
Number 1852
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated he understood the position of Mr.
Kirk. However, as a retired municipal employee, he felt Mr. Kirk
was not talking on behalf of every retiree. Furthermore, the state
put more than 50 percent of the money into the trust fund.
Moreover, the investment procedures were well within state policy
and guidelines. Imprudent investment was not an issue, and there
was nothing in this bill that indicated anyone should make an
imprudent investment.
Number 1891
MR. KIRK responded the market would find its own sense of gravity.
He would not object, if 100 percent were invested in the fund, for
example. He reiterated the bill violated the law, and the market.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER replied, "I respectfully disagree with you."
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness in Juneau, Robert Storer,
Department of Revenue (DOR).
Number 1920
ROBERT STORER, Chief Investment Officer, Treasury Division,
Department of Revenue, explained the DOR provided staff for the
Alaska State Pension Investment Board. He said he was here
primarily to answer any questions, but he did have a few
observations to comment on. He referred the committee members to
page 2, line 10, and read "increase the board's utilization of
brokerage and investment services provided by persons located in
the state to at least seven percent of the brokerage and investment
services that the board procures by contract, unless the board
makes a written finding that the board is unable to meet this goal
because there is an insufficient number of persons with the
requisite skill in the state to perform the services." He
explained brokerage services were not procured by contracts in
Alaska. Therefore, given the intent of this bill, he suggested
changing the language. Furthermore, the ASPIB accepted fiduciary
responsibility on July 1, 1993 for the retirement funds. The
contract stated that they must consider the status of the funds'
investments and liabilities, determine appropriate investment
objectives, establish investment policies to achieve these
objectives, and act only in regard to the best interests of the
system's plan and beneficiaries. Moreover, the pension board was
held to the prudent expert rule standard. He said he could not
quiver with the intent of the bill. However, legislation that
defined investment criteria, in effect, defined investment policy.
Therein was his problem with the bill. Moreover, a policy did try
to address the commitment that brokerage firms had made in Alaska.
He explained the board balanced the Alaskan entities and the best
executions through information. Information was provided on a
quarterly basis by the Department of Revenue. He explained there
were two different entities within a brokerage firm - retail and
institutional. The DOR used the institutional entity. The
institutional market was in jeopardy of downsizing, however.
Furthermore, he explained 30 percent of all equity trades were
through firms that had offices located in Alaska which equated to
about $764,000 in commission. "Did all of that money come back to
Alaska," he asked? The answer was, "no." How much? He did not
know as well. "It would not be all, however."
Number 2187
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Mr. Storer, if the board were to use a
local broker to contact an institutional broker, could the fee be
shared?
Number 2206
MR. STORER replied the board had committed to a commission
recapture program which brought dollars back into the plan. It was
intentional to not include the Alaskan firms otherwise all the
commissions would come back to the department. "By excluding them,
we are advantaging them in this process," he stated.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN wondered if this was double talk.
MR. STORER replied, this was a "trust me" scenario. It was done
intentionally so that the maximum dollars were available to firms
that had offices located in Alaska.
Number 2266
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Mr. Storer if it was possible through
institutional brokerage to direct the money? He wondered if there
were additional ways to direct the money through the state.
Number 2279
MR. STORER replied, "yes, you can direct money." There were
implications, however. There were market impacts, for example.
When directing money, it had to be in the best interest of the
beneficiaries. It also had to be in the best interest of Alaska's
financial community. He reiterated the institutional desks were
distinctly different than the offices in Alaska.
Number 2319
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked Mr. Storer what the current percentage
the board was using for local investment brokers?
Number 2324
MR. STORER replied about 30 percent of the commission dollars were
executed through firms that had offices located in Alaska. The
execution was not made directly through the offices in Alaska,
however.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated that would not mean the board had
exceeded the 7 percent goal.
MR. STORER replied, according to the language and intent of HB 345,
the answer would be 0 percent, because the commissions were not
executed in Alaska.
Number 2349
CHAIR JAMES stated if a firm such as Merrill Lynch, for example,
had an office in Alaska, but the dealings were with the office in
New York, she wondered how the money would come back to Alaska.
Number 2365
MR. STORER stated money did come back to Alaska. How much,
however, he could not measure. It was called the "intermurals" of
Merrill Lynch. He explained as much information was provided to
the local firms to receive as much commission dollars as possible
in the process. It depended on the relationship of the firms,
however.
Number 2393
CHAIR JAMES stated she was embarrassed and disappointed that the
intent of HB 345 was even an issue. Testimony today indicated to
her why it was an issue, however. She said, "the public doesn't
understand." She wondered if organizations were willing to tell
the people why there were not willing to invest in Alaska. It was
hard for her to believe there was not prudent investment available
in Alaska. She reiterated her frustration with the process.
MR. STORER replied, "I understand, Madame Chair."
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness in Juneau, John Cyr.
Number 2460
JOHN CYR, Vice President, National Education Association - Alaska
(NEA - Alaska), said the NEA - Alaska was opposed to HB 345.
TAPE 96-38, SIDE B
Number 0000
MR. CYR further said the board was obligated to get the best return
that was possible for the fund for the state. House Bill 345 was
the antithesis of faith in Alaska. If there was faith in Alaskan
businesses, brokerage firms, and Alaskans, legislation would not be
needed. Let the free market economy determine the best process.
Number 0046
CHAIR JAMES stated she agreed with Mr. Cyr. However, there were at
least eight people today that were concerned about the prudent
decisions of the board. She agreed the market should set the
process. There was bias, however. Furthermore, legislators had a
fiduciary responsibility as well. She reiterated, if this was not
an issue, the bill would not be before the committee today.
CHAIR JAMES called on the first witness via teleconference in
Anchorage, Ray J. Ellis.
Number 0095
RAY J. ELLIS, Certified Public Accountant, Raymond J. Ellis, said
he had been practicing in Alaska for over 30 years and during this
time he had seen many ups and downs in the economy. He also worked
with many clients to obtain financing. He explained it had become
very difficult to obtain financing in Alaska. He mentioned his
investment in real estate in the 1980's and the problems associated
with the banks. He expressed his support of HB 345 for more
opportunities for financing projects.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in
Anchorage, Scott Johannes.
Number 0223
SCOTT JOHANNES, President, Criterion General Inc., explained as a
general contractor he practiced business all over the state. He
said the financing process was unique due to the rural communities
in Alaska. It was hard to have comparable pricing for the banks to
use for loans, therefore, the banks required stringent cash
requirements. It was frustrating because the state put a lot of
money into the rural communities as state funded projects, but it
could not make funds accessible for private development. There
were many individuals that wanted to develop but could not find the
financing to get started.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in
Anchorage, David Gottstein.
Number 0290
DAVID GOTTSTEIN, President, Dynamic Capital Management Inc., read
the following statement into the record.
"My name is David Gottstein. I am the president of Dynamic Capital
Management, an Alaskan based investment Advisory firm specializing
in large capitalization equities. I am in the market to manage
other peoples' money for a fee. This includes government pension
assets. On the surface, because I might gain materially from its
passage, you might assume that I would favor HB 345 as it is
currently written. You would be very wrong. I am also a life-long
Alaskan, and I do not think the bill as written serves the
residents of Alaska or would accomplish the goals intended.
"Even though the intent of the proposed legislation should gain
wide approval within the state, the mechanism used is fundamentally
flawed on a number of issues. With more focused analysis, a much
better formula could be devised.
"As members of the legislature, you are charged with the difficult
task of balancing your fiduciary obligations to grow and to protect
the pension and other assets of state government with your
obligations, as citizens charged with the general welfare of you
constituencies, to seek the growth of employment opportunities for
Alaska's residents. I believe the solution would be to adopt a
legitimate prejudice to hire firms that can show that the bulk of
their human resources, wherever possible, are located in Alaska,
and that services are provided without materially sacrificing
competency, performance,or competitiveness in the area of fees,
charges or commissions. There are several reasons why a quota
system would not establish a system of checks and balances to
accomplish the goal of having a legitimate prejudice to hire such
Alaskan firms. For example:
"1. The legislation, currently written establishing a quota
system, could result in disaster. It is important that the
decision makers assigning contracts feel ownership in the outcome
and performance of their decisions. By focusing the decision
making process on a mandate to hire Alaskans, state decision makers
are forced to abdicate their primary responsibility as fund
protectors to become job creators. If a bad performance ensues
from one of the marginally qualified Alaskan contractors,
fiduciaries cannot be held accountable, because they were forced by
statute to select from a limited pool. It would be better for all
if competency did not have to take a back seat in the decision-
making process. Can you imagine a standard so low that one is
required to hire someone unless they are determined to be
unqualified? Do you know what one calls the person who graduates
last in his or her medical class? He or she is called Doctor.
This path is laced with potential mines.
"2. The second flaw lies within the language, not the intent. The
language in part says "services provided by persons located in the
state..." The potential problem here is that legally a "person"
can mean a human or an entity. A company with an office in Alaska,
with only an order taker, might qualify, even though personnel in
other states were actually getting paid for the services.
Brokerage services might appear to go through an Anchorage or
Fairbanks office, but actually be credited to an institutional New
York broker when determining commission income and bonuses.
"3. There is also a human factor. It is obvious from the way the
legislation is written that the drafters have given up on the state
bureaucracy's ability to contract services without a prejudice
against local hire. They have no incentive to do so. They would
rather go to Phoenix to check up on a money manager than Anchorage.
Attempting to beat them into submission by expecting them to adopt
a new agenda and to perform it appropriately and with enthusiasm
is, quite frankly, naive. Perhaps a better approach would be to
convince the procurement officers that Alaskan employment "will" be
a secondary, but a legitimate criteria in the selection process.
Rather than cramming a process down their throats that they don't
believe in, getting input from them on how to accomplish both goals
simultaneously would yield better results.
"4. I believe the main challenge here is to devise a method
whereby the state does not suffer from using local hire but rather
supports and fosters growth in an immature but potentially
significant industry. Current requirements sometimes preclude the
state from nurturing a promising financial services industry.
Therefore, in part, we may have to deal with certain regulatory or
policy issues that act to discriminate against local hire because
of company size and age, or amount of assets under management.
Nascent industries need help most in their early stages of
development. Let me next suggest two different approaches that may
work better than a quota system.
"Instead of quota standards that set a minimum percentage as a
goal, a peer review qualification test could be maintained that
requires, at a minimum, above average competency. This could be
done by inserting the language I used previously such as "to
institute a legitimate prejudice policy to hire firms who can show
that the bulk of the human resources engaged in providing purchased
services are located in Alaska, and that services are provided
without materially sacrificing competency, performance, or cost."
This does not require Alaskan companies to be the best or the
cheapest, but they would have to be competitive. Fiduciaries could
then be required to manage the execution of the policy.
"Another approach, not dissimilar from that which other
institutions use as a matter of course, would be to craft a farm
team program for investment managers with a relatively modest
dollar commitment. This would require the trustees to engage local
hire farm or test teams under guidelines they deem appropriate.
The quota system recommendation came as a result of frustration
within the industry. A better approach would be to tell
fiduciaries that they must engage in an affirmative action plan
without dictating to them how to do it. A quota system could
result in significant performance issues with a marginally-
performing service provider, discrediting the whole intent of the
legislation.
"These are just a few words on what might be a delicate subject.
I would be happy to answer questions from the committee members."
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in
Anchorage, Bob Bell.
Number 0519
BOB BELL said he was an Anchorage Assembly Member and Engineer. He
explained the Anchorage Assembly passed a resolution asking the
financial officers to use the local brokerage firms as much as
possible. He explained the hard times he experienced in the
1980's. The local financial institutions stood by him compared to
the national financial institutions. Furthermore, the local
brokers knew how to better invest in Alaska. He strongly
supporting keeping the profits in Alaska.
CHAIR JAMES announced HB 383 would no be heard today due to time
constraints. It would be scheduled for to Saturday, March 23,
1996. House Bill 371 would be heard next.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in
Anchorage, Mano Frey.
Number 0687
MANO FREY, Trustee, Alaska Laborers - Employers Retirement Fund,
explained the fund was a joint trustee comprised of four management
trustees, and four union trustees. The composition provided a
balance for decision making. It was personally repugnant to him to
have to be here today to testify to urge the ASPIB to invest in
Alaska. It was beyond his comprehension that it did not meet that
standard already. The Alaska Laborer's Fund had always provided a
funding level for investments in Alaska. He cited the pension fund
was about $400 million. It used investment advisors from outside,
but directed them, as long as the investment was prudent, to look
at the Alaskan market. He asserted there were prudent investment
opportunities in the state of Alaska. In conclusion, he encouraged
the ASPIB to make a direct investment in the state.
HB 371 - RIGHTS OF TERMINALLY ILL PERSONS
The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Committee was HB 371.
CHAIR JAMES called on Representative Kay Brown, sponsor of HB 371.
Number 0868
REPRESENTATIVE KAY BROWN expressed her appreciation of the House
State Affairs Committee for looking at this issue today. The issue
was both profound and emotional. She explained when she introduced
HB 371 the situation was somewhat different than today. At that
time, she was seeking to legalize the opportunity for a terminally
ill competent adult to receive the assistance of a doctor to end
his or her life in a dignified manner. However, since the
introduction of HB 371, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had
recognized the right to die with dignity as a constitutional
liberty for those that were terminally ill and competent. She
referred the committee members to the summary of findings by Terri
Lauterback, Legislative Counsel. The summary outlined the
provisions of the decision in the Compassion in Dying, et al. v.
State of Washington case which were similar to the provisions in HB
371. Furthermore, she recognized that there were many different
points of view on this issue. She emphasized that the passage of
HB 371 did not require anybody to do anything that did not fit
within their own moral code. However, it did allow those that had
a different moral code to act in accordance with their own
conscience. The legislature should move forward, debate, and
establish appropriate and proper safeguards to exercise this right.
The court decision made it difficult, if not impossible, to
prosecute a physician for participating in an act of this nature.
Moreover, the words struck down in the state of Washington were
similar to the words in the Alaska law. The public interest was
best served by setting the conditions so that all parties were
protected. The safeguards in the law recognizing the state of the
legal situation were as followed:
"The patient must be terminally ill in the opinion of a physician.
"The patient must knowingly request life-ending medication in
writing.
"A second, consulting physician must then confirm both the
diagnosis and the patient's mental competence.
"The request must be witnessed by individuals who have nothing to
gain from the patient's death and are not connected with the
patient's health care providers.
"The request must be made at least twice and no fewer than 10 days
must pass between a first and second request.
"The administration of the life-ending medication is solely in the
hands of the patient; the patient may change his or her mind at any
time.
"Physicians and pharmacists have the absolute and unquestioned
right to decline involvement. Physicians unwilling to participate
are not required to refer patients to willing physician (but may
not withdraw from the case before the patient obtains the services
of an alternate physician). Under current state law, pharmacists
are not required to fill any prescription.
"Hospitals also have the right to decline involvement.
Institutions unwilling to participate must take all reasonable
steps to transfer the patient to his/her home or to an institution
which is willing to participate."
REPRESENTATIVE BROWN further referenced a recent poll that showed
strong support for HB 371 in Anchorage. The results were: for
example, two-thirds were very likely or somewhat likely to support
it; 14 percent were very likely or somewhat likely to support it
once they learned about the specific provisions and safeguards; and
there was overwhelming support that people should have control over
their own medical care and their own end-of-life decision. She
urged the committee members to consider the benefits of moving the
bill forward to establish a framework rather than leaving the
matter in the hands of the courts and attorneys. She would be
happy to answer any questions.
CHAIR JAMES called on the first witness via teleconference in
Anchorage, Sylvia Short.
Number 1186
SYLVIA SHORT, Member, Alaskans For Death With Dignity, explained
the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the
statutes in the state of Washington that parallel the statutes in
Alaska. Alaska was bound by the decision of the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals as a member of the circuit. As a result of the
decision, there were not any guidelines or safeguards to support
the participating physicians. The only way to save the state from
the needless cost of court cases and from the possibility of
misinterpreting the court decision was to pass HB 371.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in
Anchorage, Al Sundquist.
Number 1377
AL SUNDQUIST thanked the committee members for his opportunity to
testify today. He expressed his support of HB 371. He discussed
the arbitrary structure of the assisted suicide laws. He cited the
development of the Uniform Penal Code and read, "model code reports
considered the argument that the criminality of assisted suicide
should turn upon the presence of the selfish (indisc.), but
concluded that the life, of course, was to maintain the prohibition
and rely on litigation in the sentence." He said it was time for
the acceptance of a compassionate motive for suicide. Furthermore,
he quoted the Archbishop Francis T. Hurley as stating, "I have sat
at the bedside of the dying, and I have heard the cries of those in
extreme pain. I found myself praying to God for their speedy
death. On occasion I have held them in my arms as they died."
Assisting their speedy death was a humane and compassionate
solution, according to Mr. Sundquist. "Let me answer to my God in
my own way. You in the committee have the power to save me from
the fearful death solution. Please pass HB 371."
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in
Anchorage, Lynn Stimler.
Number 1499
LYNN STIMLER, Executive Director, American Civil Liberties Union -
Alaska Affiliate (ACLU), said it was clear that the decision of the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that a terminally ill competent
person had the right to determine the time and manner of his death.
This was a very important chance for the legislature to establish
boundaries of this new constitutional right. The ACLU believed
that HB 371 would pass constitutional muster under the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals' analysis. She called HB 371 a
responsible attempt to set limits and establish procedures for
Alaskans suffering from terminal illnesses. If the legislature
were to do nothing, it would make it more difficult for terminally
ill patients to assert their constitutional right.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in
Anchorage, Janet Oates.
Number 1642
JANET OATES, Director of Marketing and Government/Community
Relations, Providence Health System - Alaska, discovered the
following observation, "my observation is that in the U.S. people
often cry `there ought to be a law,' as if that would settle the
matter." Perhaps, the observation reflected the aversion to
struggle with difficult moral issues. The Providence Health System
in Alaska opposed HB 371. The system opposed it based on the
respect for the sacredness of life, and for the compassionate care
of the dying and vulnerable person. The system felt the growing
public support was a result of the fear of losing dignity and
control during the dying process, the fear of un-released pain, the
fear of being a burden to the family, and the fear of abandonment
by family and friends. The health care system in general had
failed miserably for the support of a dying person. The Providence
Health System was aggressively promoting better pain management and
education for the support of the dying. Furthermore, the system
was concerned because it felt this was a reflection of society's
approach of a "quick fix." She cited the country of Holland where
the system was over utilized. She urged the committee members to
give this matter some time. Pain management was improving everyday
to help the dying. In conclusion she quoted, "laws are powerful
ways for society to tell their stories." Laws did not only reflect
the values of society, but also shaped the values.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in
Anchorage, Arthur Curtis.
Number 1890
ARTHUR CURTIS said as a Minister he pondered the questions of
suffering and life and death often. The evidence indicated pain
could not be controlled to make life liveable and endurable in the
thrones of an incurable illness. Furthermore, science was probably
unlikely to make those last days endurable for some illnesses.
Moreover, HB 371 established guidelines to ensure that nobody was
forced into making a decision against his will. It did not condone
murder or suicide. It was simply an aide to hasten an inevitable
death. The bill could be competently passed by the legislature to
ensure that decisions were made according to a person's own moral
and religious belief.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in
Anchorage, Kent Autor.
Number 2028
KENT AUTOR expressed his support of HB 371. He supported the bill
based on the irony that he could be more merciful to his dog than
he could be to himself. The bill enabled his freedom of choice for
himself. It also enabled his doctor to provide the assistance to
exercise his right. The bill also removed government restrictions
on individual liberties. He did not see it as a moral issue or an
issue of rights, he saw it as an issue of freedom granted by the
constitution. Finally, the law set forth sensible and effective
restrictions to preclude abuse. Moreover, he stated he had a great
deal of experience with death. It surprised him that humans came
into this world the same way, but there were an infinite number of
ways to leave it, some better than others. He asserted the
majority of citizens supported the concept of HB 371. His
experience in the pet cremation service industry further confirmed
the widespread support for medically assisted deaths. He
reiterated it was ironic that a person could be more merciful
towards his pet than himself. He stated this was not a matter of
managing pain, but of managing the prospect of life's misery. He
thanked the committee members for their time.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in
Anchorage, Kent Woodman.
Number 2256
KENT WOODMAN said he had been an Alaskan resident for over 42
years. He was not here today to discuss his personal illness, but
to talk about the duty of the laws. The United States Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals just ruled that it was unconstitutional to
prohibit a physician assisted end-of-life. He called it a
"whopping" defeat for the opposition. The decision was being
studied now by the Attorney General (AG) of Alaska. Furthermore,
the AG had already issued instructions not to prosecute positions
under the statutes because they were similar enough to Washington's
laws. The item of a "slippery slope" was dismissed as a pertinent
defense. The most supportive element of the document was that the
religious and moral persuasions could not impose their standards on
others. The position further stated laws were needed on the books
to set the parameters to prevent abuse. The failure to pass HB 371
this session would force the passage of another bill the next
session that might not be as well crafted. He called HB 371 an
excellent document.
TAPE 96-39, SIDE A
Number 0049
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in Delta
Junction, Charles Abbott.
CHARLES ABBOTT expressed his opposition to HB 371. He believed
that the argument of a person setting his values according to what
he felt was right was missing the point. He equated HB 371 with
the abortion issue that argued the death of a child was dignity for
the mother. He also believed that the first death would be "death
with dignity," the second would be "death with intimidation," and
the third would be "death with abuse." He thanked the committee
members for their time.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in Mat-
Su, Jim Ede.
Number 0117
JIM EDE expressed his support for HB 371. He supported previous
testimony in support of the bill as well. If, there was any doubt
whether or not to support the bill, he suggested studying the
decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for clarification.
He believed in following the law of the land. He urged the
committee members to pass the bill as quickly as possible.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in
Dillingham, Linda Wahl.
Number 0211
LINDA WAHL said she had lived in Dillingham since 1968. She
objected to HB 371 due to the term, "terminally ill." She cited
her daughter was diagnosed as terminally ill in 1990 and was still
around due to care and alternative treatment methods. She
explained a physician in 1991 over medicated her and felt justified
in doing so. It was not asked for nor was she in any condition to
ask for it. She said the decision making powers needed to be
questioned for the terminally ill. Her daughter was still
considered terminally ill but was a working and productive member
of the community. The issues needed to be looked at closer before
adopting an easy-out for people.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in
Fairbanks, Bruce Gordon.
Number 0365
BRUCE GORDON expressed his support for HB 371. He explained his
daughter died recently from a terminal illness. She knew her end
was coming soon and was determined to end her life without putting
him at risk before current law. She also knew that under current
law her doctor would risk prosecution, if he were to prescribe
sufficient pain medication to end her suffering. Fortunately, she
found a non-violent means and died in her own bed. The freedom
that she was searching for was provided for in HB 371. He
reiterated his support for the bill and urged the committee members
to approve it.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in
Fairbanks, Vicky Lawyer.
Number 0509
VICKY LAWYER expressed her support of HB 371. She shared a story
about a friend who suffered from a terminal disease. Her friend
had a living will, but it was not enough to let him die the way he
wanted. He eventually got to the point where he was ready to die,
but the laws were in the way. The only option was to remove his
feeding tube and starve to death. It took two weeks for nature to
take its course. She wondered at what point free will ended
because we assert it everyday. She explained the two important
words today were "decision" and "choice." This was not a political
issue or a religious issues, it was a personal issue. Her friend
was not allowed to die the way he wanted to, and that was the sad
part of her story. Please vote in favor of HB 371. She thanked
the committee members.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via off-net in Kotzebue, Al
Bowling.
Number 0690
AL BOWLING expressed his support of HB 371. He was a strong
supporter of the inalienable rights given by the creators of the
constitution. He supported the right, when placed in this
situation, to chose to end the suffering with prescription
medication. He reiterated the laws that were designed to prevent
this choice were unconstitutional and illegal. The legislature was
a body to protect the rights of its citizens and to provide
guidelines. Preventing the passage of HB 371, would be an attempt
to deprive Alaskans of their constitutional right. It was the
moral obligation of the Alaska State Legislature to pass HB 371.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in Sitka,
Christina Perrigo.
Number 0801
CHRISTINA PERRIGO said USA Today reported the number of older
persons suffering from a terminal illness who attempted suicide due
to depression was around 90 percent. Even Jack Kavorkian said that
he considered anyone with a disabling disease who was not depressed
as abnormal. Those who argue in favor of physician assisted
suicide ignore the treatment for depression. It was the
depression, not the disease, that made a person suicidal. She was
also concerned about the terminally ill circumventing the dying
process. She explained there were five stages in the dying process
- denial, anger, bargaining, depressing, and acceptance. Based on
her experience suicide was wrong because it short circuited the
five stages of the dying process. Furthermore, many terminally ill
patients would consider suicide because they were pressured into
seeing themselves as burdens on their family or society. The
family members who supported the suicide often unwillingly
supported the notion that the ill family members' life had lost all
meaning. Furthermore, escalating medical costs were a cause for
the terminally ill to see themselves as a drain on the economy and
society. She said the "right to die" would become a "duty to die."
She lastly referred to Scripture in the Bible.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in Sitka,
Lloyd Perrigo.
Number 0975
LLOYD PERRIGO asked the committee members to give the bill long
consideration. He was concerned for the elders. Those who were
elderly now or classified as terminally ill might feel a duty to
end their lives because of their strong independence and their
desire to not be a burden. They needed our protection and suicide
was not a treatment for depression. There were effective means to
deal with depression for terminally ill patients. Furthermore, he
was concerned for himself, his children, and his grandchildren. He
wondered what would happen in 30 years, for example, if the bill
was to pass. He felt it would not be safe to live in Alaska. He
was afraid the bill would transfer to those that were not
terminally ill creating involuntary deaths. He reiterated, to
protect the elders and everybody for the future, he urged the
committee members to not support the bill.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in
Anchorage, Renee Murray.
Number 1109
RENEE MURRAY said she was a 42 year Alaskan resident. She
expressed her support of HB 371. It was a personal choice,
according to the bill. The decision could not be made by the
family or the doctor, it must be made by the individual. She also
felt very strongly about HB 371 because she was a senior citizen.
She wanted to be able to make a choice in her life. She did not
see a reason for others to be involved in the last choice she would
ever have to make. She wanted to reserve that last right. She
further believed it was a constitutional right as well.
CHAIR JAMES called on the first witness in Juneau, Beverly Haywood.
Number 1243
BEVERLY HAYWOOD, Co-Chairperson, Juneau Unitarian Fellowship, said
the Fellowship unanimously supported HB 371. Furthermore, in 1988
after several years of study the Unitarian Universalist Association
of North American passed a resolution in favor of the right to die
with dignity. The Association was a mainstream Protestant Church.
She read the resolution into the record.
"Guided by our belief as Unitarian Universalist that human life has
inherent dignity, which may be compromised when life is extended
beyond the will or ability of a person to sustain that dignity; and
believing that it is every person's inviolable right to determine
in advance the course of action to be taken in the event that there
is no reasonable expectation of recovery from extreme physical or
mental disability; and
"WHEREAS, medical knowledge and technology make possible the
mechanical prolongation of life; and
"WHEREAS, such prolongation may cause unnecessary suffering and/or
loss of dignity while providing little or nothing of benefit to the
individual; and
"WHEREAS, such procedures have an impact upon a health-care system
in which services are limited and are inequitably distributed; and
"WHEREAS, differences exist among people over religious, moral, and
legal implications of administering aid in dying when an individual
of sound mind has voluntarily asked for such aid; and
"WHEREAS, obstacles exist within our society against providing
support for an individual's declared wish to die; and
"WHEREAS, many counselors, clergy, and health-care personnel value
prolongation of life regardless of the quality of life or will to
live;
"THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Unitarian Universalist
Association calls upon its congregations and individual Unitarian
Universalists to examine attitudes and practices in our society
relative to the ending of life, as well as those in other countries
and cultures; and
"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That Unitarian Universalists reaffirm
their sup[port for the Living Will, as declared in a 1978
resolution of the General Assembly, declare support for the Durable
Power of Attorney for Health Care, and seek assurance that both
instruments will be honored; and
"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That Unitarian Universalists advocate the
right to self-determination in dying, and the release from civil or
criminal penalties of those who, under proper safeguards, act to
honor the right of the terminally ill patients to select the time
of their own deaths; and
"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That Unitarian Universalists advocate
safeguards against abuses by those who would hasten death contrary
to an individual's desires; and
"BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED: That Unitarian Universalist, acting
through their congregations, memorial societies, and appropriate
organizations, inform and petition legislators to support
legislation that will create legal protection for the right to die
with dignity, in accordance with one's own choice."
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness in Juneau, Ritchie Sonner.
Number 1428
RITCHIE SONNER, Executive Director, Hospice and Home Care - Juneau,
explained hospice was a form of health care that addressed the
terminally ill by providing pain management to keep the patient as
comfortable as possible in the comfort of their own environment.
It also tried to keep the patient lucid and aware. Hospice was a
recent development in the field of medicine as well as pain
management. Pain management was now a state of the art treatment
method compared to even 10 years ago. It was still in its
developmental stage. Hospice opposed HB 371 because it felt that
the hospice philosophy of pain management and home care was being
provided. Unfortunately, the medical community was not as educated
as it should be and was not aware of the alternatives available.
That was the challenge of hospice. Furthermore, she explained it
was not uncommon for someone with a terminal illness to request to
end his life. However, once the pain was brought under control, he
was able to experience the remaining days, weeks, or months of his
life without requesting to end it again, according to numerous
accounts of hospice care providers. She reiterated Hospice opposed
HB 371.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness in Juneau, Archbishop
Francis T. Hurley.
Number 1539
FRANCIS T. HURLEY, Archbishop, Archdiocese of Anchorage, referred
the committee members to his handouts including an article written
by himself and an opposition article written by Kent Lee Woodman in
the Anchorage Daily News. The two articles indicated this was a
very, very difficult issue. He came today with a strong background
as a Catholic Bishop. The Catholic Church had a long history of
countering pain through hospitals, medical schools and
universities, for example. It was considered an evil that had to
be avoided and stopped if at all possible. The Church did not
believe that one had to suffer to get to heaven, contrary to
allegations. Furthermore, he explained the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals' ruling was narrow, and read, "the prescribing of a
medication by a physician for the purpose of enabling a patient to
end his life." The remaining was the opinion of the Court. He
felt confident it was going to be a matter of the United States
Supreme Court. The Court made it clear that the state did have an
interest and a right to intervene in this issue. It was a question
of balance, however. The Court claimed it was its prerogative and
not the legislature's. He wondered if the Court was moving into
the legislative mode. Moreover, HB 371 left many questions
unanswered. He stated, "all law affects culture and the way we
think and the way we act." The bill would create a coercive
atmosphere among the elderly, he believed. He was further
concerned about the impact on the native culture. Furthermore, the
law also affected the public attitude towards life. He also
questioned the ramifications of HB 371 and cited abortion. The
permission for an abortion had led to the idea that the government
should pay for an abortion for the poor. He was concerned of
moving towards a government assisted suicide. He further raised a
legal question and wondered if "incompetent" individuals were
entitled to the same exercises as "competent" individuals. That
legal question had yet to be confronted. He also believed this was
a controversy that would touch more people more profoundly than any
other case the courts would see in the foreseeable future. That
was a powerful statement. In conclusion, he said laws were a
combination of many considerations, not just religion. These
included, for example: legal, sociological, psychological,
philosophical, medical, cultural, spiritual, and financial to name
a few. Moreover, this issue evolved around two highly emotionally
charged words, "suicide" and "dignity." He cringed when he heard
the word "dignity" associated with the word death. He had seen,
watched, and talked to people that were dying. He wondered if all
the people involved in taking care of the dying and the dying
process itself were not dignified. He thanked the committee
members for their time.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1918
CHAIR JAMES adjourned the House State Affairs Committee meeting at
10:12 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|