04/22/2003 08:06 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
April 22, 2003
8:06 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bruce Weyhrauch, Chair
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Jim Holm, Vice Chair
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Max Gruenberg
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 243
"An Act establishing state agency program performance management
and audit powers in the Office of the Governor for the
evaluation of agency programs; and providing for an effective
date."
- MOVED CSHB 243(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 266
"An Act relating to elections, questioned ballots and questioned
voters, voter registration, training of election officials,
preparation of election materials, voter identification,
absentee voting, counting ballots, and the primary election; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 266(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 49(STA)
"An Act making corrective amendments to the Alaska Statutes as
recommended by the revisor of statutes; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 157
"An Act eliminating the Alaska Public Offices Commission;
transferring campaign, public official, and lobbying financial
disclosure record-keeping duties to the division of elections;
relating to reports, summaries, and documents regarding
campaign, public official, and lobbying financial disclosure;
providing for enforcement by the Department of Law; making
conforming statutory amendments; and providing for an effective
date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 243
SHORT TITLE:EVALUATION OF AGENCY PROGRAMS
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
04/04/03 0769 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
04/04/03 0769 (H) STA, FIN
04/04/03 0770 (H) FN1: ZERO(GOV)
04/04/03 0770 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
04/10/03 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE
519
04/10/03 (H) Mtg Postponed Until Adjnmt of
F/Session
04/15/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/15/03 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(STA)
04/17/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/17/03 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(STA)
04/22/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 266
SHORT TITLE:ELECTIONS & VOTER REGISTRATION
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
04/14/03 0965 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
04/14/03 0965 (H) STA, FIN
04/14/03 0965 (H) FN1: ZERO(GOV)
04/14/03 0965 (H) FN2: ZERO(ADM)
04/14/03 0965 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
04/15/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/15/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/17/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/17/03 (H) Heard & Held
04/17/03 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/22/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: SB 49
SHORT TITLE:2003 REVISOR'S BILL
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/31/03 0087 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/31/03 0087 (S) STA, JUD
02/20/03 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
02/20/03 (S) Moved CSSB 49(STA) Out of
Committee
02/20/03 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/24/03 0256 (S) STA RPT CS 5DP SAME TITLE
02/24/03 0256 (S) DP: TAYLOR, HOFFMAN, COWDERY,
02/24/03 0256 (S) DYSON, GUESS
02/24/03 0257 (S) FN1: ZERO(S.STA)
03/17/03 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/17/03 (S) Heard & Held
MINUTE(JUD)
04/07/03 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
04/07/03 (S) Moved CSSB 49(STA) Out of
Committee
MINUTE(JUD)
04/08/03 0745 (S) JUD RPT CS(STA) 2DP 2NR
04/08/03 0745 (S) DP: SEEKINS, THERRIAULT;
04/08/03 0745 (S) NR: ELLIS, FRENCH
04/08/03 0745 (S) FN1: ZERO(S.STA)
04/09/03 0783 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 4/10/2003
04/10/03 0783 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/10/03 0783 (S) STA CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
04/10/03 0783 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
04/10/03 0784 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB
49(STA)
04/10/03 0784 (S) PASSED Y19 N- E1
04/10/03 0784 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS
PASSAGE
04/10/03 0794 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/10/03 0794 (S) VERSION: CSSB 49(STA)
04/11/03 0925 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
04/11/03 0925 (H) STA, JUD
04/22/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 157
SHORT TITLE:ELIMINATE APOC
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/05/03 0426 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/05/03 0426 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
03/05/03 0426 (H) FN(S) FORTHCOMING
03/05/03 0426 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
03/11/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/11/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/12/03 0522 (H) FN1: ZERO(GOV)
03/12/03 0522 (H) FN2: (ADM)
03/12/03 0522 (H) FN3: (ADM)
04/22/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
PAT DAVIDSON, Legislative Auditor
Division of Legislative Audit
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on behalf of the
division during the hearing on HB 243.
GINNY AUSTERMAN, Staff
to Representative Bruce Weyhrauch
House State Affairs Standing Committee
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 243, informed the
committee of the existence of a new committee substitute (CS).
LAURA GLAISER, Director
Division of Elections
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 266 and answered
question from the members.
JAMES BALDWIN, Assistant Attorney General
Governmental Affairs Section
Civil Division (Juneau)
Department of Law
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a proposed committee substitute
(CS), Version 23-GH1138\H, to the committee, during the hearing
on HB 243.
PAMELA FINLEY, Revisor of Statutes
Legislative Legal Counsel
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced SB 49.
KEVIN JARDELL, Assistant Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Administration (DOA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed differences between the original
bill and a proposed committee substitute (CS), during the
hearing on HB 157.
BROOKE MILES, Executive Director
Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Reviewed the major points of the proposed
committee substitute (CS), during the hearing on HB 157.
PAMELA LaBOLLE, President
Alaska State Chamber of Commerce (ASCC)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of ASCC to state
concerns regarding the hour restriction on nonprofessional
lobbyists, during the hearing on HB 157.
MIKE FRANK
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of himself in
opposition to some of the principle provisions in [a proposed
committee substitute (CS), labeled revised.doc, 4/22/2003,
originally prepared for SB 119], during the hearing on HB 157.
LAURIE CHURCHILL, Founding Board Member
Alaska Voters Organization
Nikiski, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 157, read a formal
resolution in support of APOC that was passed by the Alaska
Voters Organization board of directors on March 18, 2003.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-42, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR BRUCE WEYHRAUCH called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:06 a.m. Present at the call to
order were Representatives Weyhrauch, Seaton, and Dahlstrom.
Representative Berkowitz arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 243 - EVALUATION OF AGENCY PROGRAMS
Number 0045
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the first order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 243, "An Act establishing state agency program
performance management and audit powers in the Office of the
Governor for the evaluation of agency programs; and providing
for an effective date."
Number 0097
PAT DAVIDSON, Legislative Auditor, Division of Legislative
Audit, Alaska State Legislature, told the committee that she was
available to answer questions on behalf of the division.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked which bill version was before the
committee.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH clarified that [during the April 17, 2003
hearing on HB 243], the proposed committee substitute (CS)
[Version 23-GH1138\D, Lauterbach, 4/16/03] had been withdrawn as
a work draft and was no longer before the committee.
Number 0160
GINNY AUSTERMAN, Staff to Representative Bruce Weyhrauch, House
State Affairs Standing Committee, Alaska State Legislature,
informed the committee that a new committee substitute had just
been delivered to her and would be handed out to the committee
shortly.
[HB 243 was held until later in the meeting.]
HB 266-ELECTIONS
Number 0231
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the next order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 266, "An Act relating to elections, questioned
ballots and questioned voters, voter registration, training of
election officials, preparation of election materials, voter
identification, absentee voting, counting ballots, and the
primary election; and providing for an effective date." [In
committee packets was a new proposed committee substitute (CS),
Version 23-GH1133\D, Kurtz, 4/18/03.]
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH called HB 266 the omnibus election reform bill.
He said that Version D restores the phrase "questioned" ballots
as opposed to "provisional" ballots. He said he does not think
there was any objection from the administration regarding that
change.
Number 0296
LAURA GLAISER, Director, Division of Elections, Office of the
Lieutenant Governor, testified in support of HB 266 and answered
questions from the members. She said:
Just briefly looking through this, I don't see
Representative Gruenberg's amendments in here. We can
do that in [the House Finance Committee]; I know that
[Representative Gruenberg] has great desire to do
that. He called me yesterday and said that he is ill,
so we didn't get to meet or discuss that. And I just
want to be on the record that we knew that was coming
- I gave his staff a suggested way to deal with that -
and we can proceed however you'd like.
Number 0343
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report CSHB 266, Version 23-
GH1133\D, Kurtz, 4/18/03] out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH noted that there was no quorum yet and the
committee would have to wait until Representative Berkowitz
arrived. [The motion was treated as withdrawn.] He also noted
that a motion would have to be made to adopt the proposed CS as
a work draft. [Although no formal motion was made, Version D
was later treated as adopted.]
MS. GLAISER, in response to a question by Chair Weyhrauch,
confirmed that the fiscal note would not be changed by Version
D.
Number 0410
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON brought attention to Amendment 1, labeled
23-GH1133\A.4, which read as follows:
Page 12, line 19:
Delete "AS 15.20.203(h) is repealed and reenacted
to read:"
Insert "AS 15.20.203 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:"
Page 12, line 20:
Delete "(h)"
Insert "(j)"
Page 15, line 2:
Delete "AS 15.20.207(h) is repealed and reenacted
to read:"
Insert "AS 15.20.207 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:"
Page 15, line 3:
Delete "(h)"
Insert "(k)"
Page 15, following line 8:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 36. AS 15.20.211 is amended by adding a
new subsection to read:
(f) The director shall make available through a
free access system to each voter whose ballot was
subject to partial counting under this section a
system to check to see whether the voter's ballot was
partially counted and, if not counted, the reason why
the ballot was not counted. The director shall make
this information available through the free access
system not less than 10 days after certification of
the results of a primary election and not less than 30
days after the certification of the results of a
general or special election."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 17, lines 11 - 12:
Delete "; AS 15.20.203(i), 15.20.207(i),
15.20.207(j), 15.20.211(c), 15.20.211(d), and
15.20.211(e) are"
Insert "is"
MS. GLAISER, in response to a question by Representative Seaton,
indicated that the division does not have a problem with
Representative Gruenberg's Amendment 1 as it specifically
relates to his desire to have the Division of Elections continue
sending letters to those who voted a questioned ballot or
absentee ballot for the purpose of notifying the voter as to
what part of his/her ballot was counted.
Number 0516
The committee took an at-ease from 8:11 a.m. to 8:22 a.m.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH, at 8:23 a.m., announced that for the purpose of
waiting for a quorum, the committee would recess to a call of
the chair
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH reconvened the House State Affairs Standing
Committee at 8:47 a.m.. Present at the call back to order were
Representatives Weyhrauch, Seaton, Dahlstrom, and Berkowitz.
Number 0624
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH offered his understanding that Representative
Dahlstrom had moved to adopt the committee substitute (CS)
[Version 23-GH1133\D, Kurtz, 4/18/03, as a work draft];
therefore, he stated that [Version D] was before the committee.
Number 703
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ moved to adopt Amendment 1, for
discussion purposes [text provided previously].
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked Ms. Glaiser if she had had an opportunity
to review [Amendment 1], and he asked her what the division's
position on it is.
MS. GLAISER told the committee that [Amendment 1] is fine with
the division.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked for clarification about requiring
written notice, which he said he does not see in the amendment.
MS. GLAISER responded that by deleting the repealers, since
notification by mail is currently in law, that provision of law
is being left as is. Also, she noted that the free access
system is being added. She said, "That's what this amendment
allows us."
Number 0798
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH indicated that there was no objection to
[Amendment 1]; therefore, Amendment 1 was treated as adopted.
Number 0816
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to report CSHB 266, Version 23-
GH1133\D, Kurtz, 4/18/03, as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note.
There being no objection, CSHB 266(STA) was reported out of the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 243-EVALUATION OF AGENCY PROGRAMS
Number 0874
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH returned the committee's attention to HOUSE BILL
NO. 243, "An Act establishing state agency program performance
management and audit powers in the Office of the Governor for
the evaluation of agency programs; and providing for an
effective date."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH reminded the committee that at the previous
hearing on HB 243 [April 17, 2003] a committee substitute had
been adopted and withdrawn, leaving the original bill version
before the committee. Furthermore, Representative Berkowitz had
offered a conceptual amendment [on page 2, line 4, after the
word "confidential", which would add: "only to the extent
permitted by other provisions of law". Chair Weyhrauch noted
that Mr. Baldwin had been asked to "take that under advisement."
Number 0920
JAMES BALDWIN, Assistant Attorney General, Governmental Affairs
Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law, presented a
proposed committee substitute (CS), Version 23-GH1138\H, to the
committee. He reported the following:
We did prepare an amendment for the bill and sent it
to your committee ... staff, which we believe marries
what we intend, along with - we hope - ... some of the
concerns that were specified by Representative
Berkowitz, which would propose to have the language
read in a way that, while preserving the
confidentiality of audit papers, ... would not allow
us to elevate anything, that was heretofore considered
open to the public, to be confidential merely by
conducting an audit or bringing them into the
possession of an auditor.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH told the committee members that a proposed
committee substitute (CS), Version 23-GH1138\H, was in their
packets. In response to a question by Representative Seaton, he
clarified that it was Version D that was rescinded as the
working document at the [April 17, 2003] meeting. He noted that
a sentence was added to Section 3 of Version H [page 2,
beginning line 5], which read as follows:
However, a record containing information, data,
estimates, and statistics obtained during the course
of an audit conducted under AS 44.19.145(a) may be
kept confidential only to the extent required by law
applicable to the agency from which the record is
obtained.
MR. BALDWIN, in response to a question by Chair Weyhrauch,
confirmed that that sentence was added per the advice of an
auditor. He said he had told the auditor that he had no
objection to the addition.
Number 1177
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if there are definitions in
statute for some of the terms used [in Version H] such as:
"record", "information", and "audit work papers".
MR. BALDWIN said that he doesn't think that the words "work
papers" are defined; however, he noted that those words are
already in use by the legislative auditors.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if a record would be distinct
from [a] work paper or other related supportive material.
MR. BALDWIN responded that he doesn't believe so. He said that
the term "public record" is defined in Title 40. He added, "The
term 'record' ... just basically is a document."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ clarified the reason for his line of
questioning as follows:
This confidentiality provision ... turns on the
intersection between the terms 'record' and 'audit
work papers and other' ... 'related supportive
material', and if those terms are not synonymous, it
seems like an invitation for trouble.
MR. BALDWIN responded, "I can tell you that our intent here is
to make it clear that there would be no ability under these
amendments to elevate a document, heretofore considered open and
available to the public, to a confidential status merely because
it's in the possession of an auditor." He explained that what
[the last sentence in Section 3 of Version H] is meant to say is
that "if it's open to the public when it's in the possession of
another agency, when it becomes in the possession of an auditor,
it would likewise be open to the public." He added that that is
the intent of the language.
Number 1304
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS), Version 23-GH1138\H, as a work draft.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH indicated that, without objection, [Version H
was before the committee].
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said that his concern remains that in
"some other person's estimation," internal audit work papers may
not rise to the level of records He opined that the language in
the amended sentence ought to track the language that it's
modifying.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked Representative Berkowitz if he was
asking for the substitution of the word "record" with either
"file" or "document".
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said that the "cleanest" would be to
substitute "a record" for "internal audit work papers and other
related supported material". He admitted that it is cumbersome;
however, he said that the repetition of the language would make
interpretation of the statute easier.
Number 1465
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH clarified that with Representative Berkowitz's
suggested amendment to Version H, [page 2, beginning on line 5]
would read as follows:
However, internal audit work papers and other related
supportive material containing information, data,
estimates, and statistics obtained during the course
of an audit conducted under AS 44.19.145(a) may be
kept confidential only to the extent required by law
applicable to the agency from which the record is
obtained.
MR. BALDWIN said he understood the amendment. He said he had
considered using the term "public record", which is defined in
Title 40. He added that it would include "almost any scrap of
paper that an agency had that generally is available to the
public." He stated that he doesn't really have a problem with
Representative Berkowitz's amendment. He said that he thinks it
has the intent that he is trying to achieve. He explained that
the reason he had chosen the word "record" was because he wanted
to refer to any document. He note that "record" is the term of
art that's used, basically, in the public records log, although
the correct defined term is "public record". He said he is sure
that the language that was proposed could be improved upon.
Number 1651
PAT DAVIDSON, Legislative Auditor, Division of Legislative
Audit, Alaska State Legislature, regarding Version H, said that
in terms of assisting the Division of Legislative Audit in any
way, [Version H, with or without the amendment] would be just
fine. In response to Chair Weyhrauch's further clarification of
the amendment, she said that would expand [the language]. She
said, "Typically, in working papers, what you're going to see
... depends upon how you define "information"; you're going to
see narratives - the write-up of discussions you've had with
agency personnel."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH stated that he has a concern with the amendment
because he understands that internal audit work papers are
generally not disclosed to the public. He asked Ms. Davidson if
that is true.
MS. DAVIDSON said that it depends on what the state decides.
She stated, "What you need to do is make sure that confidential
information that is made confidential any place else in statute
remains confidential, even if it becomes part of internal work
papers." In response to a follow-up question by Chair
Weyhrauch, she confirmed that internal audit work papers may or
may not be confidential.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH commented that the amendment would allow some
protection to both the public and to the auditors. He
emphasized the tension between wanting to keep records open to
the public, yet wanting auditors to do their job and take
sensitive analysis of issues.
MS. DAVIDSON acknowledged that. She continued as follows:
From an auditor's perspective, one of the things that
benefits [the Division of] Legislative Audit in the
fact that our working papers are confidential, is that
... it eases agencies' concern when they give us
access to confidential information. It also may
enhance communication - [the] interview process - when
these people know that they're supervisor can't come
and say, "Well, what did you tell the auditors?" So,
those are just the tradeoffs that you have to make
when preparing the statutes, and [determining] ...
what you want to deem as confidential.
Number 1838
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said it seems that what is being made
confidential is no more confidential than what is required under
existing law, and repeating the same language [as the amendment
to Version H would do], would make that very clear. He
indicated that if the term "a record" is used, then "we're not
quite sure where we're going." He asked Ms. Davidson if she
sees any problem doing that.
MS. DAVIDSON said she doesn't "see any particular difference
there - one [way] or the other."
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM, in response to Chair Weyhrauch, stated
that she has no objection to the amendment.
Number 1925
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that, there being no objection to the
suggested "conceptual" amendment to Version H, [it was adopted].
Number 1943
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report CSHB 243, Version 23-
GH1138\H, as amended, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note. There being
no objection, CSHB 243(STA) was reported out of the House State
Affairs Standing Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that he finds it problematic
that "funding for the position comes from raiding the Division
of Elections and the Human Rights Commission." He said that he
hopes that issue will be addressed in the House Finance
Committee.
SB 49-2003 REVISOR'S BILL
Number 2010
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the next order of business was CS
FOR SENATE BILL NO. 49(STA), "An Act making corrective
amendments to the Alaska Statutes as recommended by the revisor
of statutes; and providing for an effective date."
Number 2015
PAMELA FINLEY, Revisor of Statutes, Legislative Legal Counsel,
Legislative Legal and Research Services, introduced SB 49. She
told the committee that SB 49 was prepared pursuant to statutes,
and it's purpose is to clean out mistakes, or "things that have
just become obsolete," for example, changes of board names or
federal statute citations. She said that [SB 49] would also
clean up drafting errors, where the legislature's policy choice
is clear, but "we just forgot to amend another statute or make
conforming amendments."
MS. FINLEY referred to the sectional analysis [in committee
packets], and offered to answer any questions from the
committee. She noted that [SB 49] is a bill which has so many
subjects that she cannot cover them all [in a brief time].
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH noted that the House State Affairs Standing
Committee is the first committee of referral in the House. He
commented that there had just been a four-day weekend, and he
asked if there would be a practical problem in holding the bill
to give the committee more time to review it before discussing
it.
MS. FINLEY replied that there would be no practical problem in
doing so.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that SB 49 was heard and held.
HB 157-ELIMINATE APOC
[Contains discussion of SB 119 and brief mention of HB 106,
original version, and SB 89.]
Number 2140
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the last order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 157, "An Act eliminating the Alaska Public
Offices Commission; transferring campaign, public official, and
lobbying financial disclosure record-keeping duties to the
division of elections; relating to reports, summaries, and
documents regarding campaign, public official, and lobbying
financial disclosure; providing for enforcement by the
Department of Law; making conforming statutory amendments; and
providing for an effective date."
[In committee packets was a proposed committee substitute (CS),
labeled revised.doc, 4/22/2003, originally prepared for SB 119.
The fiscal note prepared by the Alaska Public Offices Commission
(APOC) also apparently addressed this version.]
Number 0157
KEVIN JARDELL, Assistant Commissioner, Office of the
Commissioner, Department of Administration (DOA), referred to a
memorandum that outlines the changes that are proposed in the CS
[included in the committee packet], which he said obviously
makes the proposed CS drastically different from the original
piece of legislation introduced by the administration. He said
[the proposed CS] is a result of considerable work and
discussion between APOC and the administration. He said that
[the proposed CS] is one that he believes the administration has
"come to believe deserves a chance to proceed on it's own
merits, to see if it will produce the results that we hope to
see."
MR. JARDELL revealed that the original bill produced by the
administration was the result of looking at the frustrations
involved in [political] campaigns, particularly in regard to the
lack of disclosure on some of the advertisements during the last
90 days of campaigning. The APOC, he said, came forward with
some legitimate concerns. He continued as follows:
We disagree with them on some of them. We still think
that that idea will work; we still think it's a good
idea. But after reviewing the APOC's comments and
listening to them, we think they see the same
frustrations. They have some unique perspectives from
working with all the campaigns, ... and they had some
good ideas. And the administration sat down with them
and finally decided that their ideas deserve a chance
to see ... if they're going to work and produce
results.
Number 2300
BROOKE MILES, Executive Director, Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC), reviewed the major points of the proposed CS
as follows:
The commission believes one of the very most important
things about this legislation is that it lays the
foundation for mandatory electronic filing under the
campaign disclosure law, also under the lobbying law
and the financial disclosure law. The foundation is
laid there and would of course depend on the funding
of the capital project, which is currently in the
budget. And if we're successful in receiving the ...
one-time funding then that project will move forward
as expeditiously as possible. The commission would
hope that the new online filing would be available for
the 2004 state election cycle.
The second-most important part of this legislation is
that it changes the way the APOC handles complaints.
The statute now provides some timelines for
respondents [and] some timelines for the commission to
issue orders, all in the hopes that a complaint will
move forward much quicker than they have in the ...
entire past history of the commission.
In addition to that, it provides for an expedited
process to be used at crucial points in an election or
other activity where the alleged wrongdoing could
effect the outcome of an election or other event. And
it gives the commission a sort of a cease-and-desist
authority, so, if it was in the last minute of the
campaign and there was an illegal ad running, the
commission could actually issue a "cease" order on
that.
It shortens the time for bringing the administrative
complaints to the commission from four years to one
year, which is also helpful in processing complaints,
because ... the older the activity is that is the
subject of the complaint, the more difficult it is to
investigate.
And it authorizes APOC to request the assistance of
the attorney general in ... certain cases where we
have jurisdictional problems, or where someone has
disobeyed an order of the commission.
Number 2460
MS. MILES continued:
This legislation requires full disclosure. And by
that I mean that where candidates now completing your
campaign disclosure reports will report all of the
people who gave over $100 by name, address,
occupation, and employer, under this legislation,
[they'll] be reporting the name and address of all of
[their] contributors, regardless of the amount. When
a contributor gives more than $250 to your campaign,
you will also be responsible for disclosing the
occupation and employer information.
This legislation eliminates the requirement to file a
report 10 days after the election and expands the
year-end report so that it covers all the activities
of a campaign. ... For example, in 2004, candidates
would not be required to file a report 10 days after
the election, but the report that they file on
February 15th - the year-end campaign disclosure
report - will include all expenditures through the
entire dispersement period, up to February 1st. And
this requires dispersement by February 1st for state
campaigns, as opposed to 90 days after the election,
which is the language in current law. The difference
... could be a matter of four days less for
dispersing.
The legislation incorporates, however, the language
that the commission currently administers concerning
exempt fundraising activities, ... so if you have a
fundraising activity that is ... high-volume, low-
cost, ... you'll just count the number of people
participating and the proceeds from the fundraising
event.
This repeals the ban on a candidate's excepting
campaign contributions after the primary election, if
the candidate prevailed in the primary election and is
still going to appear on the general election ballot.
That's been an area that was identified as problematic
to us from different candidates. Candidates who are
appearing on the general ballot are still candidates
and, as such, usually like to purchase direct mailing,
radio, newspaper, and television advertisements, and
when they must cease fundraising 45 days after the
primary election, that severely limits their ability
to carry forth on those projects.
Number 2612
MS. MILES went on to say:
This raises campaign contribution limits. For
individuals to contribute to a group or a candidate,
the raise is from $500 to $1,000. For individuals who
contribute to political parties, it's raised from
$5,000 to $10,000. For groups to contribute to
candidates, it's raised from $1,000 to $5,000. Those
are groups that are not political parties. For groups
to contribute to a political party, it's raised from
$1,000 to $10,000, and for non-group entities -
advocacy non-profit corporations - they may give
$1,000 to a candidate, where currently they're limited
to $500.
This legislation requires reporting of [a]
contributor's occupation and employer information only
when it's more than $250 - I spoke to that. This
increases the amount an individual may spend
independently on signs, billboards, [and] printed
materials advocating the election or defeat of a
ballot question, from $250 under current law to $500.
This is an activity that arises out of the U.S.
Supreme Court case called MacIntyre, and $250 was the
lowest, most narrow limit. Raising that's probably
not a very controversial issue.
This does remove the prohibition on lobbyists
contributing to legislative candidates outside their
voting districts. Under this bill a lobbyist would be
able to give a lawful campaign contribution to the
legislative candidate of her or his choice; however,
lobbyists are required to file a contribution report
upon giving a contribution to a legislative candidate.
So, in addition to it being reported by the candidate,
it needs to reported by the lobbyist, which is a
requirement under current law, ... [but] they can only
give to the ... legislators who are running to
represent the district in which the lobbyist is
authorized to vote.
Number 2730
MS. MILES added:
It removes language that was held unconstitutional in
the Alaska Supreme Court case on campaign finance
reform, regarding campaign contributions during
legislative session. This legislation changes
language in AS 15.13; it does not change language in
[AS] 24.60, which currently precludes legislators from
accepting campaign contributions during the
legislative session. It's really a housekeeping
measure; the supreme court decision specifically
removed it in one section of the law, leaving it in
another section of the law, which caused a great deal
of confusion to certain individuals trying to read the
law and thinking they couldn't accept campaign
contributions - "challengers," in other words - during
the legislative session.
It repeals the requirement that candidates notify APOC
of the intent to seek recoupment of a candidate's loan
to the campaign, within five days of making that
contribution. This is another area that was
identified to us as problematic by the candidates.
The amount that a candidate gives to her or his own
campaign will still be required to be reported, of
course, and on the report - which will be the
regularly filed campaign disclosure report; that
candidate will be required to indicate whether or not
they wish to recoup those contributions with surplus
campaign funds at the conclusion of the campaign. But
the five-day notice is repealed.
This requires municipalities to affirmatively opt into
coverage under the campaign disclosure law. It
changes the current statute - ... they can vote
themselves out. This will require them to vote
themselves in, and the state will charge a fee to
oversee reporting by municipalities. That fee is
going to be designed by the folks at the Department of
Administration, as opposed to the commission that
promulgates all the other regulations under this
chapter, because the Department of Administration is
more familiar with how to fairly assess that. And it
will go through the entire regulatory process, of
course.
Lastly, under AS 15.15 - the campaign disclosure law -
this amends the definition of a political party to be
consistent with the definition of a political party in
the Division of Election's law. This is important
legislation, and it's kind of "clean-up" too, and it
will actually make a lawsuit go away, saving us all
money.
Number 2858
MS. MILES also said:
The lobbying law would see the following changes. Of
course, again, electronic filing [being] the most
important. It increases the amount of time that a
part-time lobbyist has to engage in lobbying
activities before she or he is required to register as
a lobbyist. The current APOC regulation provides for
4 hours; this would provide for 16 hours, ... I
believe in a 30-day period.
It changes the definition of administrative action in
the lobbying statute ... by codifying a regulation
that the commission has had on the books for many
years that exempts certain agency lobbying activities
from the law, particularly when you're dealing with
permitting and licensing, when a person is appearing
before a quasi-judicial agency. It's generally quasi-
legislative or quasi-judicial agencies that are
exempted. People who are trying to sell products to
the state have been forever exempted from the lobbying
law, and these are just moving the exemptions into ...
statute.
Legislators' financial disclosure statements: the
threshold for reporting the sources of income would be
moved from $1,000 to $10,000. That's the only change
in the legislator's financial disclosure. In public
official financial disclosure reports:
[municipalities] are removed; it increases the
reporting threshold for sources of income from $1,000
to $10,000; [it] makes an exemption for publicly
traded companies if the filer's interest is less than
$10,000; [it] increases trust or fiduciary reporting
from $1,000 to $10,000; and [it] increases the
reporting threshold for public officials to report the
source of a gift from $250 to $500.
The commission's thought on raising these amounts:
for one thing [it is] that the $1,000 has been a limit
on the books for a long time, but the commission
didn't feel that $1,000 of income was really [a] very
significant amount of income. ... Under the public
officials financial disclosure you have elected
officials: people running for the legislature or
statewide office, you have commissioners, assistant
and deputy commissioners, directors, deputy directors,
and members of ... [many state boards and commissions
,... the APOC ... being one of them.] [The previously
bracketed portion was not on tape, but was taken from
the Gavel to Gavel recording on the Internet.]
TAPE 03-42, SIDE B
Number 2983
MS. MILES continued:
[Not on tape, but taken from the Gavel to Gavel
recording on the Internet, was the following bracketed
portion: [As you may be aware, many boards or
commissions require professional people to be part of
the membership] - attorneys, accountants, doctors -
and in disclosing sources of income, attorneys
therefore are required to list their clients' names
for clients who ... paid more than $1,000. Part of
the idea of moving this to $10,000 would be those
client lists would be less long and it would,
hopefully, make it easier to recruit people to
participate in government as the board and commission
wanted.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that he will hear public testimony
before the committee begins to ask questions of Ms. Miles.
Number 2903
PAMELA LaBOLLE, President, Alaska State Chamber of Commerce
(ASCC) told the committee that ASCC has been working on HB 106
and SB 89, both bills dealing with the definition of lobbyists.
She offered her understanding that those bills have been rolled
into [HB 157]. She noted that the ASCC's concern is that the
law states that if a substantial portion of a person's time for
which he/she is receiving compensation is in "the influencing of
legislation" or administrative action, then that person is a
lobbyist. She said that APOC defined [that time] as four hours
in a 30-day period.
MS. LaBOLLE said that ASCC has maintained that approximately 2.3
percent of a person's time "is not substantial." She added,
"This increases that to 9 percent." She said that ASCC still
does not think that that's substantial. She noted that
professional lobbyists are still covered under law and must
register before doing any professional lobbying, whether
contracting or setting up a business as a lobbyist, for example.
MS. LaBOLLE offered the following example:
Say you're a human resource person for a company, and
there [are] some issues that are before the
legislature or before the administration that will
impact your business - how much you're going to pay
your employees, what the work rules are for employees,
[and] what kind of reporting as an employer you're
going to have to do - I mean there's just numerous
things that ... a [human resources] person would be
involved in. And we feel that ... even 16 hours is
not sufficient for the time that you may need to spend
to do this, and that you aren't a lobbyist, you're a
human resources person for an organization, ... for a
company.
If you're an engineer and there's work being done on
some rules and regulations and laws regarding
engineering, it may take more ... [of] your time than
16 hours to convey the concerns or to help ... provide
the information that you as a professional engineer
are the only one that can provide, or your
professional group is the only one that [can] provide
it. So, ... our position has been that by limiting
the amount of time that professional and business
people can provide information to the legislature
without requiring them to make themselves a lobbyist
is detrimental to the legislative process; it's
detrimental to the administrative process. That
people should be able to provide this information
freely, and we maintain ..., as under SB 89 and ... HB
106, that ... 25 percent of a person's time is more in
the line of substantial amount of a person's time.
Number 2698
MS. LaBOLLE also expressed concern that APOC has recently more
broadly defined what it considers a lobbying activity to include
time spent in activities in which legislators are also
participating. She offered an example of a person playing in a
golf tournament where a legislator is on the same team. Since a
round of golf often takes more than four hours to play, it can
become a real problem. She stated that the ASCC feels that
lobbying should be "more directly defined." If the amount of
time is limited to the 16 hours proposed [in HB 157], she
emphasized that it's even more important that there be a better
definition of what a lobbying activity is and in what things a
person can participate in "before the clock starts ticking."
MS. LaBOLLE told the committee that the ASCC is glad that the
[proposed CS would reverse the law that] limits professional
lobbyists from giving to candidates outside their own district.
She said she knows that the courts did not rule that
unconstitutional, but personally, as a lobbyist, she said she
felt it was prohibitive and unfair. She said she cannot
recollect anything that comes before the Alaska State
Legislature that is so parochial in nature that it would only
affect an individual's district. She emphasized that it is
important to her as an individual to be able to contribute to
the candidates that she thinks support what she believes in,
including in what she believes is good for the state. She
remarked that the actions and decisions that are made by the
legislature have statewide impact.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that he is concerned when people
say they don't have access to him. He relayed that he's never
had a problem in the seven years that he's served in the
legislature with someone in business or in any other community
saying that he/she didn't have access to him. He noted that
[Ms. LaBolle] had made references to instances [where this kind
of thing happened]. He asked her to provide concrete examples
of when people have been impeded in their efforts to contact the
legislature because of the "hour limit."
MS. LaBOLLE responded that there are people who have registered
on the books at APOC because they were afraid that they would go
over the four hours; and therefore, they were forced to register
up front. She also mentioned people who limit their contact
with legislators within the four hours, rather than having to
register, and take themselves out of some of the activities
allowed in the electoral process that a registered lobbyist
cannot participate in.
Number 2470
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said that he sympathizes, because
legislators are prohibited from doing certain things; however,
they voluntarily "join those ranks." He stated that he would
think that lobbyists are willing to make similar sacrifices in
order to get the compensation that they do.
MS. LaBOLLE agreed that professional lobbyists and legislators
do voluntarily agree to play by the rules when they seek those
positions. She clarified that she is talking about people who
are not lobbyists and never want to be lobbyists, and they are
not voluntarily "giving this up." She said that those people
are choosing either to limit their response or their input to
the legislative process, or to register as a lobbyist and have
to "give up, unwillingly, some of these rights."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ noted that Ms. LaBolle's concern was
that it was unfair, and he asked how she would feel about a
complete ban on professional lobbyists making contributions to
legislators, rather than "just on a district level."
MS. LaBOLLE said she knows many lobbyists who think that that
would be okay; however, personally, she reiterated that she
thinks that individuals who are citizens of [Alaska] should be
able to contribute to any candidate they choose to support. In
response to a reference by Representative Berkowitz regarding
her previously stated example of someone playing golf with a
legislator, Ms. LaBolle said that she has an excerpt from a
letter that was sent to an individual, which says that that
constitutes lobbying.
Number 2351
MIKE FRANK, testifying on behalf of himself, told the committee
that he was the chair of Campaign Finance Reform Now! when that
group put an initiative on the ballot in the mid-1990s to reform
the state's campaign finance laws. He stated, "I am vigorously
opposed to some of the principle provisions in Senate Bill 119
and, I guess, [in] what will be a House substitute." He offered
the following history:
After statehood, we had almost no regulation of
campaign finance in Alaska until 1974, when citizens
once again put an initiative on the ballot to reform
the state's current laws. That initiative was taken
off the ballot when the legislature passed something
substantially similar. Unfortunately, that ... law
that was passed had spending limits, which were struck
down in Buckley v. Valeo in 1976. And ... basically,
that decision eviscerated the intent of Alaska law.
And as a consequence, between 1974 and ... the 1990s,
campaigns in Alaska became more and more expensive,
and candidates - particularly incumbents - became
reliant on contributions from corporations, union
political action committees, lobbyists, wealthy
individuals, and other powerful special interests.
And unfortunately, between 1974 and the mid-90s, the
legislature refused to do anything to amend the law to
accommodate the change required by Buckley v. Valeo.
In the mid 1990s, I got together with former
Representative David Finkelstein, and we decided the
only way to reform the existing law was through
another initiative. So we created Campaign Finance
Reform Now! The goal of our organization was to
refocus the financing of campaigns on the individual
voter, in order to serve the democratic goal of one
person, one vote. We wanted to reduce the corrupting
influence that money from lobbyists, special
interests, and the wealthy have on candidates - again,
particularly on incumbents who have a much easier time
raising money from the regulated interests - and on
political parties. So, we wanted to lower
contribution limits. We wanted to make it much more
likely that the average voter who doesn't have $500 or
$1,000 to contribute could participate in the
financing of our elections.
The initiative significantly reduced contribution
limits; it allowed only individuals to contribute to
candidates and to political groups, including
political parties; it banned the contributions from
corporations and unions, trade associations; and
imposed the lobbyist restriction that's in current
law. It banned soft money entirely; there was no such
thing as soft money. The slogan of our initiative
was, "Big Money Out Of Alaska Politics." It was
endorsed by four ex-governors: Governor[s] Hammond,
Hickel, Cowper, and Sheffield. In a very well-
attended press conference in 1995, each told stories
of witnessing the corrosive influence of big money
contributors during their political careers.
Number 2217
MR. FRANK added:
... We needed 21,000 signatures. We were overwhelmed
with the positive response, [and] easily collected
well over 30,000 signatures. We could have easily
collected twice that in the time we had, if we wanted.
In fact, Senator Tim Kelly, who was ... a
representative at the time, did a poll which showed
that 80 percent of Alaskans favored our initiative.
Our initiative was placed on the ballot and, as you
know, the legislature can knock ... an initiative off
the ballot if it passes something substantially
similar within a year. And we decided we would
cooperate with the legislature, in an effort to come
up with a broadly supported bill. We thought that was
important. And therefore, we worked with the
legislature and we compromised significantly on the
stringency of the initiative; we raised the
contribution limits; and we did a lot of other things
to accommodate legislative interests. Eventually the
bill passed. There were only two dissenting votes.
And I should note that in the next election both of
those people were thrown out of office.
In following the passage of the law, the Republican
Party in particular ran advertisements declaring that
it had delivered on campaign finance reform .... And
as I think Brooke Miles mentioned, the law was
challenged by the Alaska Civil Liberties Union
[AkCLU], but the supreme court upheld the law in a 5:0
vote, except for a provision that had not been in the
initiative. And the U.S. Supreme Court denied a
petition for hearing of [AkCLU's] appeal.
Unfortunately, a portion of the law was struck down
when the Republican Party sued in federal district
court. That concerned the soft money ban. And,
unfortunately again, the legislature quickly codified
that ruling in state law, and passed a law over
Governor [Tony] Knowles's veto. That created the soft
money ban, which everybody is worried about today.
Number 2147
MR. FRANK continued:
But what ... Senate Bill 119, and what will be in the
new House bill, does is make the soft money problem
much, much worse. It basically eviscerates much of
what we had in the initiative, and many of the
provisions of current law that we compromised with in
the legislature in the 1990s: It substantially raises
contribution limits; it allows lobbyists to contribute
again; [and] it eliminates the power of municipalities
to make stricter laws in their own areas. It just is
a bad, bad bill. The major provisions of it really
are a breach of faith with those 31,000 people who
signed the initiative in the mid-90s and who sought
reform.
In the end, I would simply like to know what exactly
the problems [are that] the Senate bill is trying to
solve. How do these major changes in the 1995 law
make our elections more democratic? How do they make
the playing field level for all candidates, as opposed
to making it easier for incumbents to raise money and
for lobbyists to have influence. It seems to me that
these ... suggested major changes in our law not only
undercut the compromises we reached in the mid-1990s
to pass or are broadly supported by the legislature,
... [but] don't address real problems. I think all
they do is make it easier for incumbents to raise more
money, [and] it makes it easier for the special
interests to have inordinate influence on our elected
officials. And so, I'm opposed to those, and I hope
the committee takes a very, very hard look at some of
the provisions and rejects them, ... keeps faith with
the people, makes sure our campaign finance reform law
remains in place, and encourages democratic
participation by our citizens.
Number 1922
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Mr. Frank if, based on his
understanding of the constitutionality of the law, it would be
permissible to restrict the contributions of a political party
so that they were no greater than any other interest group.
MR. FRANK responded that that is a hard question to answer. He
said that he thinks political parties and groups were designed
to allow the aggregation of money from people who otherwise
couldn't make large contributions, in order to enable a larger
voice for those people. He stated that he thinks that the
courts ordinarily have been more solicitous of political parties
and the amount of contribution they are allowed to make. He
said he thinks the courts probably see the political parties as
a filter that prevents the appearance of corruption and actual
corruption; it's kind of a filter between individual
contributors and political candidates.
MR. FRANK restated that he thinks if the contribution limits
that individuals have to give to political parties are raised,
then individuals may be given an inordinate voice in political
party affairs, and, particularly, wealthy individuals may direct
party affairs and channel funds more indirectly, and such would
be harder to discern, and thereby gain undue influence. He
concluded that he thinks that it is important to keep the amount
of money that individuals are allowed to contribute to political
parties down to a reasonable level, as well as to put "some
reasonable cap" on the amount of money that political parties
are allowed to contribute to any individual's campaign.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked, "Is there any requirement that
we recognize political parties in this state?" He added, "We
don't at the municipal level."
MR. FRANK answered that he is unaware of any case law that
requires the recognition of political parties. He said he
thinks it's more a matter of traditional political practice than
a matter of first amendment law.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked whether, if the bill passes, is
Mr. Frank aware of any discussion of having a referendum to
repeal it.
MR. FRANK said he was not aware of any, and suggested that he
and others would be likely to propose one. He said [the
proposed legislation] is distressing. He said he knows that
most of the committee members were not in the legislature in the
mid-1990s. He posited that most of the legislators who
participated in the discussion back then realized that "this was
so popular that it was a political tar baby to oppose it." He
stated that that is why the vote was so overwhelming in favor of
it, and why people were so cooperative in trying to get
something to the legislature that made sense. He mentioned the
proponents of raising contribution limits and allowing lobbyists
to contribute, and said, "If they want to run for political
office, they have to pause to see how that will hurt their
political future."
Number 1709
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH commented that candidates get to meet a lot of
lobbyist's [spouses]. He asked how that would be effected by
the proposed legislation.
MR. FRANK answered that he doesn't recollect that there are
currently any restrictions regarding contributions from
lobbyists' family members. In response to comments made by a
previous witness, he noted that one of the things about the
lobbyists' restriction is that lobbyists who support a candidate
outside their own district can make independent expenditures and
contribute to political parties, and can otherwise completely
participate in political affairs. He explained, "It's really a
minor restriction on their ability to participate in that
they're not allowed to contribute outside their own district."
In fact, he revealed, he personally collected approximately
2,600 signatures for the initiative drive. During that time, he
said, countless lobbyists thanked him and thanked campaign
finance reform for putting on the restriction. He related,
"Present company excepted, ... many legislators, they said, were
... twisting their arm to make contributions, and they loved the
idea of using the campaign finance reform bill as insulating
them from this constant need to contribute and to go to
fundraisers, and so on."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to the memorandum from APOC,
dated April 21 [2003] and asked Mr. Frank if he could get a copy
of it and label which points in it he does and does not have
contention with.
MR. FRANK said he would be happy to do that.
Number 1531
LAURIE CHURCHILL, Founding Board Member, Alaska Voters
Organization, told the committee that her organization is a
statewide political education group. She referred to a formal
resolution in support of APOC, which was passed by the Alaska
Voters Organization board of directors on March 18, 2003,
[included in committee packets] and which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
ALASKA VOTERS ORGANIZATION
RESOLUTION 2003-05
A Resolution to the 23rd Alaska State Legislature in
OPPOSITION to significant changes to, or elimination
of, the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC).
WHEREAS, the Alaska Public Offices Commission began as
the Alaska Election Campaign Commission (AECC) in
1974; and
WHEREAS, the incentive for campaign disclosure
resulted from the Watergate scandal and a successful
citizen initiative effort, which convinced our State
Legislature to pass the Alaska Campaign Disclosure
Law; and
WHEREAS, that same year, another initiative effort
succeeded in placing Alaska's Public Official
Financial Disclosure Law on the ballot, where it was
approved by over 71% of the voters and became law in
January 1975; and
WHEREAS, in 1976, the legislature revised state
lobbying reporting by passing Alaska's Lobbying Law,
with responsibility for its enforcement assigned to
the AECC [Alaska Election Campaign Commission], which
was renamed the Alaska Public Offices Commission
(APOC), to reflect its newly expanded mission; and
WHEREAS, in 1990, the legislature responded to an
increased demand for ethics regulation and disclosure
by expanding its previous reporting requirements under
the Conflict of Interest Law in the form of a new act,
Alaska's Legislative Ethics Disclosure Law, which
created the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics to
hear ethics violations; and
WHEREAS, the 1997 Alaska Campaign Disclosure Law was a
response by the legislature to a citizens' initiative
effort in 1996, which revised Alaska's 20 year-old
campaign disclosure law to include stricter limitation
and disclosure measures, including the prohibition of
corporate and out-of-state group contributions to
state and local candidates; and
WHEREAS, in 2003, legislation proposed by Governor
Murkowski and members of the State Legislature, have
put party politics ahead of good honest public policy;
and
WHEREAS, attempts to significantly reduce lobbyists
reporting requirements or to eliminate the non-
partisan Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC),
violates the will of Alaskan voters, who spoke out on
three separate occasions to create the very agency and
regulations currently being threatened with
elimination; and
WHEREAS, the unfettered access to information is the
foundation of a democratic society; and
WHEREAS, the public has a right to know the truth
about all funds paid to influence Alaska's
legislature; and
WHEREAS, Governor Murkowski and the legislature's
attempts to weaken or eliminate APOC, promote bad
public policy that will further erode the public's
trust in our government; and
WHEREAS, the citizens of Alaska have spoken loud and
clear, "state laws should not be relaxed to make it
easier for lobbyist to influence our elected
officials";
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Alaska Voters
Organization, Board of Directors, that we support
existing Alaska statutes governing campaign disclosure
and registration of lobbyists; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, that we oppose all efforts to reduce
the effectiveness or existence of the Alaska Public
Offices Commission (APOC).
ADOPTED BY THE ALASKA VOTERS ORGANIZATION
BOARD OF DIRECTORS, THIS 18th DAY OF MARCH 2003.
Number 1210
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that HB 157 was heard and held.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1192
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 10:00
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|