Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/29/1999 08:07 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
April 29, 1999
8:07 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jeannette James, Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Scott Ogan
Representative Jim Whitaker
Representative Bill Hudson
Representative Beth Kerttula
Representative Harold Smalley
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
* HOUSE BILL 192
"An Act relating to reciting the pledge of allegiance by public
school students."
- MOVED HB 192 OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL 104
"An Act relating to the Kuskokwim Ice Classic."
- MOVED SB 104 OUT OF COMMITTEE
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 179
"An Act eliminating the Alaska Public Offices Commission and all
campaign contribution and expenditure limits; transferring the
administration of lobbying, conflict of interest, and financial
disclosure statutes from the Alaska Public Offices Commission to
the division of elections; relating to reporting of campaign
contributions and expenditures; defining 'full disclosure,'
'purposely,' 'recklessly,' and 'resident'; amending the definition
of 'contribution,' 'group,' and 'political party'; changing the
residency requirements for candidates for public offices; and
providing for criminal penalties for violation of these
provisions."
- HEARD AND HELD
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 14
Relating to the National Museum of Women's History and the National
Museum of Women's History Alaska Council.
- WAIVED FROM COMMITTEE
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 192
SHORT TITLE: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) JAMES, Dyson, Kohring, Ogan,
Coghill
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
4/13/99 795 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
4/13/99 795 (H) STA, JUD
4/15/99 833 (H) COSPONSOR(S): DYSON
4/21/99 905 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KOHRING
4/23/99 964 (H) COSPONSOR(S): OGAN
4/27/99 1038 (H) COSPONSOR(S): COGHILL
4/22/99 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
4/22/99 (H) <BILL POSTPONED TO 4/29>
4/29/99 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: SB 104
SHORT TITLE: KUSKOKWIM ICE CLASSIC
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) HOFFMAN
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
3/14/99 528 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
3/14/99 528 (S) STA
4/08/99 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
4/08/99 (S) MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
4/08/99 (S) MINUTE(STA)
4/09/99 (S) RLS AT 12:15 PM FAHRENKAMP 203
4/09/99 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
4/09/99 844 (S) STA RPT 1DP 4NR
4/09/99 844 (S) NR: WARD, PHILLIPS, GREEN, WILKEN;
4/09/99 844 (S) DP: ELTON
4/09/99 844 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (REV)
4/12/99 878 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 1NR 2OR 4/12/99
4/12/99 882 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
4/12/99 882 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
CONSENT
4/12/99 882 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SB 104
4/12/99 883 (S) PASSED Y15 N4 E1
4/12/99 885 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
4/13/99 787 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
4/13/99 787 (H) STA
4/29/99 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 179
SHORT TITLE: APOC REPEAL: CAMPAIGN/DISCLOSURE/LOBBYIST
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) COGHILL, Sanders
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
4/07/99 671 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
4/07/99 671 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
4/15/99 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
4/15/99 (H) <BILL CANCELED>
4/19/99 866 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED
4/19/99 866 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
4/19/99 866 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
4/22/99 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
4/22/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD
4/27/99 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
4/27/99 (H) BILL CANCELED
4/29/99 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
RICHARD SCHMITZ, Staff
to Representative James
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 102
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3743
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 192 on behalf of Representative
James.
DENNY WEATHERS
c/o P.O. Box 1791
Deep Bay
Cordova, Alaska 99574
Telephone: (907) 424-3745
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 192.
CAROL NILSON
109 Shannon Drive
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Telephone: (907) 452-7835
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 192.
DARROLL HARGRAVES, Executive Director
Alaska Council of School Administrators
326 Fourth Street, Suite 404
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-9702
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 192.
TIM GRUSSENDORF, Researcher
to Senator Hoffman
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 7
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4453
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 104 on behalf of Senator Hoffman.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 99-32, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:07 a.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives James, Coghill, Ogan, Whitaker,
and Smalley. Representatives Kerttula and Hudson arrived at 8:08
and 8:20 a.m. respectively.
HB 192-PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
CHAIR JAMES announced the first item on the agenda is HB 192, "An
Act relating to reciting the pledge of allegiance by public school
students."
Number 018
RICHARD SCHMITZ, Staff to Representative James, explained HB 192
amends the existing state flag statute to include the requirement
that the Pledge of Allegiance be offered in the public schools on
a regular basis.
REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY cited that the Pledge of Allegiance is an
every-morning activity in the Kenai Peninsula School District and
that the staff members are encouraged to conduct different
assignments because reciting the pledge becomes rote and has little
meaning until it is discussed.
MR. SCHMITZ said HB 192 would also standardize the state. He
mentioned Anchorage and Fairbanks students are required to give the
Pledge of Allegiance and that the Aleutian East School District
recently instituted a pledge policy which they found to be very
successful.
Number 077
REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY emphasized that students who do not
participate, due to a religious belief or other, should not be
identified and ridiculed.
MR. SCHMITZ referred to page 1, lines 9 and 10, "or maintain a
respectful silence," and noted it would be an option.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA pointed out that supreme court cases
recognized the religious rights not to pledge and that you don't
even necessarily need to be respectful. Furthermore, a person can
dissent from the pledge if he or she wants to remain silent.
Representative Kerttula asked, "Have you thought about taking out
the word 'respectful' and have it just be 'maintaining silence'
because that word might connotate a little bit greater meaning than
actually the courts have recognized." Her second point was it may
include teachers and suggested changing the language to "anyone or
any person."
Number 115
CHAIR JAMES said she doesn't believe there is anything wrong with
the word "respectful" and indicated that she would rather go to the
supreme court rather than to remove the word "respectful."
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA emphasized that there could be real
problems with the bill without the two constitutional points.
CHAIR JAMES believes people should be treated with fairness and
respect and she recognizes anyone's rights that are listed in the
Bill of Rights.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN hoped people are respectful when saying the
pledge in honor to those that have paid the ultimate sacrifice for
our flag. He added that being respectful is appropriate.
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER said he is glad the word is in the
legislation.
Number 182
REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY asked, what about the courts and the
determination of "students may" to say "any person may." He
stressed the point that staff is generally protected by agreements
but volunteers are not.
CHAIR JAMES said she doesn't think it changes the teacher's rights,
but we'll take that into consideration.
Number 237
DENNY WEATHERS, testified in support of HB 192, via teleconference
from Cordova stating respect should be included for all of them
(teachers, students, and volunteers) and read the following
testimony:
I think this bill is very important to Alaska and the future
of America. Many adolescents and adults I talk with cannot
recite the Pledge of Allegiance.
Children in Alaska's public schools are being taught that
America is a democracy even though the Constitution of the
United States of American ... and the Alaska Statehood Act ...
guarantees every state in the Union a republican form of
government and the Pledge of Allegiance reinforces "to the
republic for which it stands."
[She explained the history of the American flag].
I support and will defend HB 192 as I will the flag of the
United States of America which will be 222 years old on June
14, 1999 and I will continue to pledge allegiance to the flag
of the United States of America and to the republic for which
it stands as Americans have been doing for the past 106 years
and would hope others would too.
Number 314
CAROL NILSON testified in support of HB 192 via teleconference from
Fairbanks. She said she supports the following text:
United States and Alaska flags shall be displayed of upon or
near each principal school building during school hours and at
other times the governing body considers proper. The
governing body shall require that an appropriate flag exercise
be held regularly in each classroom, at school assemblies,
and, if feasible, at interscholastic events.
MS. NILSON also supports the choice of maintaining a respectful
silence. If passed, she believes the bill's action may help to
bring a more patriotic attitude toward our country.
Number 355
DARROLL HARGRAVES, Executive Director, Alaska Council of School
Administrators, appeared before the committee noting that he is
speaking for himself because his membership hasn't informed him of
what their position is. He told the members when he was a teacher
the children learned and memorized the Pledge of Allegiance and
it's saddening to find junior and senior students today who have
not. He said he cannot understand what's wrong with the Pledge of
Allegiance in a classroom because we recite it at sporting events
and we hear it in the chambers of the legislature. He also
mentioned the students are meant to feel okay about removing
themselves from the classroom and from that activity and believes
no harm is being done to those individuals.
MR. HARGRAVES said he believes there is a provision which allows
flags to be displayed in the classroom, furthermore HB 192 adds
that flags will be displayed around the buildings. He concluded,
"But the sad thing is that because of a rebellious nature on the
part of some staff, I'm afraid in public schools, in recent
decades, they will not put those flags up in the classroom. So we
have a situation where I think it's okay to call attention to the
need of the flag in the classroom, and I think there's a need to
teach children the Pledge of Allegiance." Mr. Hargraves commended
Chair James for introducing HB 192 and stated, without polling his
membership, he believes the vast majority of Alaska Council of
School Administrators will support the Pledge of Allegiance in the
classroom.
Number 417
CHAIR JAMES explained HB 192 doesn't require that a flag be in the
classroom, however the new language states, "The governing body
shall require that an appropriate flag exercise be held regularly
in each classroom," and they can't do that without a flag.
MR. HARGRAVES mentioned one of the first things he did when he was
a superintendent was he bought enough flags to put in every
classroom.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN indicated he heard rumors that some people in
the U.S. do not want to pledge allegiance due to the reference of,
"One Nation Under God." He asked Mr. Hargraves if that's a problem
in Alaska.
MR. HARGRAVES replied, not in Alaska, unless a person doesn't
believe in God.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA mentioned the "Jehovah's Witness" is one of
the dissenting groups because they do not pledge to anything,
therefore, the supreme court allowed them not to say the pledge.
Number 464
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA offered Amendment 1 which changes the
title,"by public school students," to:
An Act relating to reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public
schools.
Line 9,
Delete: Students
Insert: Any person
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA explained that, "Any person," clarifies
that if staff, or teachers' aids were in the classroom they would
recognize that they too had a right to leave or remain silent. She
emphasized that if that isn't included, it might add confusion over
whether it was just a student's right or everyone's right.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if a teacher refuses to participate, will
they have to bring someone in to lead the class in the pledge.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA replied she supposed so since it's their
constitutional right, however someone could come in or a student
could lead the pledge if they wanted to.
Number 489
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected to the amendment because if a staff
person felt strongly about it he or she could be excused or stand
silently as a student might.
CHAIR JAMES mentioned Representative Hudson had arrived.
REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY supports Amendment 1 because it encompasses
not just the students but mostly anybody within the building and
that the pledge has been recited by his students on a voluntary
basis. He also noted that it is broadcast over the public system
in many schools and that it is an encouraging lesson for elementary
students to volunteer to lead the class.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he opposes the amendment because it's a
constitutional right, and if we address it specifically, it doesn't
change that right.
Number 536
CHAIR JAMES said she is troubled with changing the language because
the emphasis is for students and it has nothing to do with teachers
and volunteers or other folks because their rights are still there.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON doesn't believe there is that problem because
HB 192 does not state that the teacher or that any student has to
cite the pledge, it simply states that the governing body (probably
the superintendent or the principal) has to make it available.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA explained that if this were to become law,
only the body of the text would be in the statute and everyone
won't have the benefit of hearing this discussion to understand
that it was only directed to students. She also noted that the
title of the bill won't be seen to recognize that it was aimed just
at students, therefore, it will be confusing to people.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said people are allowed to do, district by
district, what they do. She further stated, "I don't see the
problem, I don't see why we need the bill but if we do need the
bill and we want to make a statement, I think we should at least be
clear that this is everyone's right not to do this - and I do think
it will result in some confusion. So just to try to maintain the
constitutionality, I think it would be better to have it be any
person. I thought about what the sponsor just said about wanting
to be sure we have public school students in the title, you could
say something like, 'Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance by public
school students and in public schools,' because especially for
instance if we're doing it at interscholastic events you're
probably going to have parents and other people around as well. So
that's why I'm offering the amendment, it's just for the sake of
clarity since this is something new for us."
Number 610
CHAIR JAMES pointed out that HB 192 was prompted by young students
whose teachers told them the Pledge of Allegiance is not a good
thing. She then requested a roll call vote on the amendment.
Upon a second roll call vote, Representatives Smalley, Kerttula and
Whitaker voted in favor of adopting proposed Amendment 1 and
Representatives Hudson, Ogan, Coghill and James voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 1 failed by a vote of 3-4.
Number 669
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON moved to report HB 192 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note.
There being no objection, it was so ordered.
SB 104-KUSKOKWIM ICE CLASSIC
CHAIR JAMES announced the next issue up is SB 104, "An Act relating
to the Kuskokwim Ice Classic."
A brief-at-ease was taken to close out street noise.
Number 684
TIM GRUSSENDORF, Researcher, presented SB 104 on behalf of Senator
Hoffman. He noted that SB 104 is basically a housekeeping measure
to allow Bethel Community Services Foundation, Inc. to manage a
Kuskokwim Ice Classic which is required by the Department of
Revenue; it's only a name change.
Number 692
REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY moved to report SB 104 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note.
There being no objection, it was so ordered.
HB 179-APOC REPEAL: CAMPAIGN/DISCLOSURE/LOBBYIST
Number 702
CHAIR JAMES announced the next order of business is SSHB 179, "An
Act eliminating the Alaska Public Offices Commission and all
campaign contribution and expenditure limits; transferring the
administration of lobbying, conflict of interest, and financial
disclosure statutes from the Alaska Public Offices Commission to
the division of elections; relating to reporting of campaign
contributions and expenditures; defining 'full disclosure,'
'purposely,' 'recklessly,' and 'resident'; amending the definition
of 'contribution,' 'group,' and 'political party'; changing the
residency requirements for candidates for public offices; and
providing for criminal penalties for violation of these
provisions."
CHAIR JAMES mentioned Representative Coghill will explain the
changes and that this will be more of a work session.
Number 719
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said his main goal is to bring a clear open
disclosure to the Alaska voters and that his main aim is to make
sure that the voters are able to have immediate access to campaign
spending and open reporting which is available on the Internet and
that there is a clear candidate and that an affidavit is required
- an open file. He further explained that the Division of
Elections will have clear penalties for a candidate's failure to
disclose because he thinks (if you're going to have an open
disclosure with limits taken off) their needs to be a clear and
immediate action taken on failure to disclose. Representative
Coghill further believes the accountability is high if the limits
are removed. In repealing the APOC (Alaska Public Offices
Commission) he said his the basic premise was he is not convinced
that having a police agency within the Administration is really the
wise thing to do because there has to be a separation of powers
where if we really are going to demand a civil or criminal activity
that should happen over in the legal system, in the court system.
He said the original bill brought the hammer down a little hard and
the Department of Law asked him if he really wanted to make people
criminals for smaller infractions. He said it was a good point so
he went back and revisited it.
Number 763
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL directed the member's attention to page 34
of the working draft, Section 39.50.025 Filing, and asked them to
flag that because he wants them to know, if APOC is repealed, how
it would affect the conflict of interest report.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated Title 24, Sections 30 and 31, page
24, deals with lobbying, the back two sections of this deal with
the lobbying conflict of interest statements and the first section
deals with Title 15 is the campaign disclosure reporting procedure
(mostly under APOC).
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL continued, beginning on page 16, Sections 22
and 23, addresses civil penalties, Section 6, page 4, refer to
criminal penalties.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL explained his main premise for HB 179, in
repealing APOC, is to take the police agency work out of it and
turn that court judicial action over to the legal system.
Number 803
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL referred to the question, "should there be
limits as to who should give and how much should be given." He
said he addressed that in Section 4, Full Disclosure Reports, by
taking information from regulations and some from statutes he tried
to make what he thinks should come up on a screen (Internet) or
stay in a file (spreadsheet) so it is very clear.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL directed the members' attention to pages 1,
2, and 3 which address full disclosure.
1. all expenditures
2. contributions
3. loans
Number 821
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL explained that HB 179 requires each
expenditure and contribution, the date, how it was paid (with a
check, credit card or cash) and the contributor's name. He said he
omitted the contributor's address because he questioned whether he
wanted to put somebody's address on the screen. He added, however,
if there's going to be full disclosure he guesses there's a need
for that and is open for discussion.
TAPE 99-32, SIDE B
[Approximately four minutes of blank space on tape which is due to
flipping the tape over - no testimony was lost].
Number 007
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Representative Coghill if he means to
require reporting of, "all of this information for donations under
and over $100.00," for contributions.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL replied that it was brought up (at the last
meeting) that contributions under $100.00 would be a problem.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA noted it currently isn't required.
CHAIR JAMES said, for example if someone gives you $25.00, the
fifth time that person contributes $25.00 you would have to report
that, "valued at more than $100.00 a year."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said his aim was to show an accumulation.
He indicated that he isn't sure if he has it correct on how it is
to be shown if someone wishes to only donate $25.00.
CHAIR JAMES said that can be fixed by the legal drafter.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL believes it will have to show that a
candidate did receive the money. He mentioned that this was pulled
from APOC regulations and that he is trying to show what reporting
needs to be in this one area.
Number 053
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON pointed out his concern with the original
bill was that there was no limitation on the amount that could be
contributed to a candidate from either a corporation, union, or
individuals.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL read Section 11, page 7 (of the working
draft), noting that he took Representative Hudson's suggestion:
Prohibited contributions. (a) a person or group may not make
a contribution if the making of the contribution would violate
the chapter.
(b) a person or group many not make a contribution
anonymously, using a fictitious name, or using the name of
another.
(c) a corporation, company, partnership, firm, association,
organization, business trust or surety, labor union, or
publicly funded entity that does not satisfy the definition of
group in as 15.13.400 may not make a contribution to a
candidate or group.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL pointed out that (c) came from existing APOC
regulations.
Number 079
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL explained that a provision is provided for
folks who want to form a pack (similar to what they have now) with
a full recognition that corporations, public entities, were not
formed for the specific purpose of promoting candidates or
propositions. They would have to have full-consent of the pack
before making a contribution. He said he remembered reading a
court case that made him think that through.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON remarked, "They could make up to $1,000."
CHAIR JAMES said she believes it is currently $500 that any one
person can give and isn't it $1,000 for a group?
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL replied, "It couldn't come from this arena
but they still would be able to give under a pack or a group." He
then referred to the "Definitions," (page 20, Section 24) and
reiterated that the aim was to take the limits off, but the
immediate disclosure (every 15 days) in his thinking is that the
people are going to be the judges of the matter rather than the
state. Therefore, he didn't put the limits on them.
Number 157
CHAIR JAMES said it seems like HB 179 is going on a different
philosophy than the legislature has been headed with campaign
finance reform. She indicated Representative Coghill's theory is
that only some people are not to be trusted.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL replied there is no doubt that this is
viewed as a radical departure and it certainly is not meant as an
attack. He noted that what has been done is we've limited campaign
spending up until the time they actually put their name on the
list. "That's the time you sign up is the time that you can begin
raising money, so that's the time that you begin disclosing."
Number 223
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL further explained that and the affidavit is
sworn testimony that a candidate has not spent money. He referred
to Section 25, Declaration of candidacy, stating that this section
is pretty much what we're doing now, it's just that it all starts
at one point.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL pointed out that allowance is made for some
polling and personal travel so that a candidate can "test the
waters," but that's not campaign spending under the current rules
and that it would be a constitutional problem if you tried to stop
them from asking people, "Should I run."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL summarized his previous testimony and
emphasized the Department of Law made a good point about making
somebody a criminal based on small infractions. He said there had
to some leeway for the department to say that under certain
conditions it was worthy of an administrative fine, then a civil
penalty, and a civil court action. He said it was at that point
that he wanted to separate it from the department.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL referred to the question, "Can this money be
taken for personal use," and directed the members' attention to
page 11, Section 18, Uses of campaign contributions held by
candidate or group, for an example some of these funds can be used
to pay civil penalties, used to attend functions that are political
in nature, and maybe used to co-sponsor an event. He said, "The
idea of turning it over to another candidate for example, we left
that prohibition in there."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL indicated there can be some discretion as to
penalties for late filing. He said we can put those into statute
and a flag would come up on failure to disclose but that would
begin the marking time for a penalty on late filing.
Number 361
REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY applauded Representative Coghill's efforts
to have clear and open disclosure. He said, if the campaign were
nine-months long, there would be 18 reports to a month, and a final
report and asked what about reports for the 24-hour period prior to
primary election, prior to the general election, what about
contributions over a certain amount.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL replied that a 24-hour report was added
because they thought things should be reported and done clearly and
that there should be a reporting procedure (the closer you get to
an election) so somebody can't come in with $100,000 in the last
three days. He said that's the high degree of accountability he is
seeking.
REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY asked if the 24-hour report is tied to a
specific amount.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL replied anything over $250.
Number 389
REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY asked if the Division of Elections would be
able to input all the information because it will require a great
amount of time if it's faxed. He also mentioned someone in a
candidate's office can input that information and can follow up
with a hard-copy with the required signature.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he is open for suggestions on how to
give incentives to do that.
CHAIR JAMES suggested that if they can't get it on the Internet,
they would have to send a check with it.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL added when you obtain anything from the
Division of Elections, you pay for the hard-file copy.
Number 405
REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY emphasized that it would probably make it
easier for the Division of Elections (time-wise and perhaps
cost-wise) however, there will be the cost in setting that program
up. He said the candidates may also attach reports to forms that
are already on-line, however, a candidate might not have that
expertise or might not have that availability. Therefore, they'll
have to send the hard-copy with the required signature attached to
it.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said, "I understand that, and in pulling
APOC their responsibility and put it into the Division of Elections
it was my understanding that we would have to have some of the
staff people from the Division of APOC right now." He noted his
reluctance to put it in the Division of Elections was because of
the workload, however, his emphasis is to make full open disclosure
get to the populace quickly.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL mentioned another issue that was brought to
his attention is the integrity of the election process being tied
to the campaign process. He said he believes there are five
regional offices in the Division of Elections which would serve the
populace well as a reporting place and that he thought of having an
APOC center (Alaska Public Offices Center) within the Division of
Elections (in a separate office) because they're not going to be
the police action so much as the administrative action. He further
noted that once they get to a certain civil penalty, they can fine
up to so many late days and may report it to the district attorney,
and then a court action happens whether it's civil or criminal.
Number 463
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN doesn't think "John Q. Public" is going to care
months ahead of an election on how much money a candidate is
raising every two weeks because that information more important
closer to an election. He suggested reporting would start every
two months, maybe narrow it down to every month, and then every two
weeks. Another concern of his is that it's narrowed down the
influence to the wealthy few, through companies and through higher
paid employees who have more influence than others.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he is also concerned with "no limits."
For example, a business which is affected by a state decision can
contribute to up to $100,000 to a candidate who has a leadership
position or influential committee chairmanship, and they're going
to get their issues through.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL replied, human nature being what it is (and
rich people being able to manipulate) they can do that now. He
added that the system also currently allows for the pooling of
money and that just becomes a little more burdensome and as far as
taking the limits off, let the people be the judges.
Number 573
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER said he didn't know if that's all that bad
because he has concerns with APOC. His concern is that he doesn't
know if it's getting any simpler and confirmed that the proposed
notion is that the candidates will simply have full disclosure
judged by the electorate and fewer regulations. He asked if there
are additions to that.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL replied the basic philosophy is that the
state becomes the judge of the matter rather than a general
electorate and that Alaska should have an open disclosure so the
people can see that rather than the government first. He said he
also believes the electorate should regulate the candidate rather
than the government.
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER said he will need time to go through the
working draft to understand it [49 pages].
Number 689
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA pointed out APOC had glitches with their
software last year. And, as Representative Smalley mentioned, if
you could have on-line filing that might be a good idea. She said
she believes it would helpful if all the information between APOC
and the Division of Elections can be coordinated into a guidebook
which goes 1, 2, 3, because there are cross references. She also
emphasized that they will have to have increased staff because APOC
is so bare-boned that they can hardly keep up with their work.
Representative Kerttula also suggested training be offered, or
maybe even required before a candidate can run because it's a whole
new process.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA is concerned about completely lifting the
amount and about all the reports that would be required. She said
she thinks it would find to be too onerous because a candidate
couldn't keep up with that if they're in an intense race - unless
you do something like the on-line filing.
Number 734
CHAIR JAMES said the reports last year didn't necessarily follow
accounting principals and they worked well. The particular problem
was when you counted in non-cash and cash. She indicated the final
page was the most difficult and being an accountant didn't help.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL agrees on-line filing is going to be an
important part of this and if they had to keep double-records and
everything had to be handled 15 times it could become a burden.
CHAIR JAMES asked if obligation liability is included in HB 179
because it was brought to her attention that people committed to
television advertising near the end of the campaign and didn't pay
for that until after the election. In other words, if the
obligations aren't there, people could do things that people
wouldn't be aware of.
Number 783
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he doesn't know if he addressed the
obligation. He further stated that he thinks if the model is based
on computer input the workload would go down some, there is going
to be a monitoring process and a degree of administration and each
region of the Division of Elections will have to make sure that it
is monitored.
REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY said he echoes Representative Kerttula's
comments and agrees with Representative Ogan's comments regarding
the frequency of reporting.
TAPE 99-33, SIDE A
Number 001
REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY continued. "Then during the 22 session
we're basically in limbo do we continue filing because we have in
fact begun a campaign even though we have no activity, there's
another 10."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL replied if you had no activity, then it
wouldn't be much of a report.
REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY said it's still going into the Division of
Elections, it's still adding up. The election-year swings in,
seven more months, 14 more reports plus an end-of-the-year report,
24-hour filing, plus, plus, plus. He further stated, "My thought
was perhaps during the off-election year, every two months - an
end-of-the-year report, during the session and end of the session,
perhaps report that there was no activity, and then during the
actual election year (June through November) monthly with the
14-day filing prior to the primary, prior to the general and the
end-of-the-year report. And again that's a lot fewer but it's
still very very frequent as far as disclosure, the only people that
are really going to make much about the disclosure of information
are your opponent - that's where it's going to go to the public is
from your opponent and/or the press. But it's still frequent, I
think enough that it's going to keep the public active and
involved. I wonder about myriad of 38 plus reports."
Number 083
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said it's just another burden and not to
mention the significant cost associated with staff to make sure
those reports are filed. There are more things to get tripped up
on, and more chances of becoming criminals for not filing. He
reiterated that he doesn't see a need for that much reporting,
especially early on.
CHAIR JAMES said when the reports become available to the public,
if they don't like it, they can complain and have it audited. She
further explained the reports aren't necessarily automatically
audited and indicated that it isn't that much more work to do.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated reporting is a matter of the burden
of responsibility and that burden needs to be placed on the
candidate rather than the state, and disclosure is for the general
populace it's not for a government agency. He reiterated that HB
179 is meant for open disclosure and a degree of freedom (in the
ability to receive contributions) and the tradeoff is a
responsibility that goes with that accountability and that needs to
be more out in the open.
Number 183
CHAIR JAMES said she personally has a problem with the Division of
Elections monitoring these things only because the APOC is supposed
to be more nonpartisan (or if it is bipartisan) and the Division of
Elections is not. She mentioned the person who manages the
division was once a political candidate. So putting a lot of that
information in the hands of the Division of Elections is expanding
the division to an area that it probably shouldn't be involved in.
She said she agrees that we have given too much responsibility to
the APOC and that they have been overworked and it's not going to
get any better because the legislature never takes away rules, we
only add more by giving them huge challenges because we don't think
in the same terms as they have to work.
CHAIR JAMES said she can't believe that there won't be a group who
is sort of insulated from politics. She further stated, "Now when
you start making limits on the money, even that, if there is a
reporting of too much money spent, or money spent in a wrong way,
if the public would complain ... that they're not subject to review
this, but the public is and they only respond to whatever the
direction is." She said HB 179 would simplify it and every change
has to have a really good understanding and has to work.
Number 277
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that he will talk to the effected
departments.
[SSHB 179 was held for further consideration].
HJR 14-NATIONAL MUSEUM WOMEN'S HISTORY AK COUNCI
CHAIR JAMES asked to waive SSHJR 14, Relating to the National
Museum of Women's History and the National Museum of Women's
History Alaska Council, sponsored by Representative Phillips. She
said she believes it is not a controversial bill and asked if there
was any objection. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 319
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:51 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|