05/05/2005 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB28 | |
| SB172 | |
| HB176 | |
| HB273 | |
| SB132 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 28 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 172 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 176 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 273 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 132 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
May 5, 2005
8:04 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Paul Seaton, Chair
Representative Carl Gatto, Vice Chair
Representative Jim Elkins
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Jay Ramras
Representative Berta Gardner
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 28
"An Act relating to the municipal dividend program; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 28 OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 172
"An Act relating to the presentation of initiatives and
referenda on the ballot."
- MOVED HCS SB 172(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 176
"An Act exempting the state and its political subdivisions from
daylight saving time."
- MOVED CSHB 176(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 273
"An Act relating to the dividends of individuals claiming
allowable absences; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 132(efd fld)
"An Act relating to complaints filed with, investigations,
hearings, and orders of, and the interest rate on awards of the
State Commission for Human Rights; and making conforming
amendments."
- MOVED HCS SB 132(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 28
SHORT TITLE: MUNICIPAL DIVIDEND PROGRAM
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) MOSES
01/10/05 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 12/30/04
01/10/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/10/05 (H) CRA, STA, FIN
03/29/05 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
03/29/05 (H) Heard & Held
03/29/05 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
04/05/05 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
04/05/05 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/07/05 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
04/07/05 (H) Moved Out of Committee
04/07/05 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
04/08/05 (H) CRA RPT 1DP 4NR
04/08/05 (H) DP: CISSNA;
04/08/05 (H) NR: KOTT, SALMON, LEDOUX, OLSON
05/03/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
05/03/05 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
05/05/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: SB 172
SHORT TITLE: INITIATIVE/REFERENDUM BALLOT SUMMARY
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) THERRIAULT
04/13/05 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/13/05 (S) STA
04/19/05 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
04/19/05 (S) Moved SB 172 Out of Committee
04/19/05 (S) MINUTE(STA)
04/20/05 (S) STA RPT 4DP
04/20/05 (S) DP: THERRIAULT, WAGONER, HUGGINS, DAVIS
04/25/05 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/25/05 (S) VERSION: SB 172
04/26/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/26/05 (H) STA, JUD
05/05/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 176
SHORT TITLE: ELIMINATE DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) SALMON
02/25/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/25/05 (H) CRA, STA
04/07/05 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
04/07/05 (H) Moved Out of Committee
04/07/05 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
04/08/05 (H) CRA RPT 1DP 1DNP 3NR
04/08/05 (H) DP: SALMON;
04/08/05 (H) DNP: OLSON;
04/08/05 (H) NR: CISSNA, KOTT, LEDOUX
04/23/05 (H) STA AT 9:30 AM CAPITOL 106
04/23/05 (H) Heard & Held
04/23/05 (H) MINUTE(STA)
05/05/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 273
SHORT TITLE: PFD: DELAY PAYMENT FOR ALLOWABLE ABSENCES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) WEYHRAUCH
04/18/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/18/05 (H) STA, FIN
05/05/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: SB 132
SHORT TITLE: HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
03/04/05 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/04/05 (S) STA, JUD
03/17/05 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/17/05 (S) Heard & Held
03/17/05 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/29/05 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/29/05 (S) Moved SB 132 Out of Committee
03/29/05 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/30/05 (S) STA RPT 3NR 1AM
03/30/05 (S) NR: THERRIAULT, WAGONER, HUGGINS
03/30/05 (S) AM: DAVIS
04/07/05 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
04/07/05 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/08/05 (H) JUD AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 120
04/08/05 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/14/05 (S) JUD RPT 1DP 2NR 2AM
04/14/05 (S) DP: SEEKINS
04/14/05 (S) NR: THERRIAULT, HUGGINS
04/14/05 (S) AM: FRENCH, GUESS
04/14/05 (S) JUD AT 8:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
04/14/05 (S) Moved SB 132 Out of Committee
04/14/05 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/21/05 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/21/05 (S) VERSION: SB 132(EFD FLD)
04/22/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/22/05 (H) STA, JUD
05/03/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
05/03/05 (H) Heard & Held
05/03/05 (H) MINUTE(STA)
05/05/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE CARL MOSES
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 28, as sponsor.
KEVIN RITCHIE, Executive Director
Alaska Municipal League (AML)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 28.
ADAM BERG, Staff
to Representative Carl Moses
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of Representative
Moses, sponsor of HB 28.
BILL ROLFZEN, Municipal Assistance
National Forest Receipts
Fish Tax, PILT
Juneau Office
Division of Community Advocacy
Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development
(DCCED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
28.
JOE BALASH, Staff
to Senator Gene Therriault
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 172 on behalf of Senator
Therriault, sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE WOODIE SALMON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HB 176.
LYNN WILLIS
Eagle River, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of himself during the
hearing on HB 176.
ROBERT TOBEY
Glennallen, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of himself during the
hearing on HB 176 in opposition to doing away with daylight
saving time.
MOIRA SMITH, Staff
to Representative Woodie Salmon
Alaska State Legislature
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of Representative
Salmon, sponsor of HB 176.
LINDA SYLVESTER, Staff
to Representative Bruce Weyhrauch
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 273 on behalf of
Representative Weyhrauch, sponsor.
SHARON BARTON, Director
Alaska Permanent Fund Division
Department of Revenue
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
273.
CHRISTOPHER C. POAG, Assistant Attorney General
Commercial/Fair Business Section
Civil Division - Juneau
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 273.
SCOTT J. NORDSTRAND, Deputy Attorney General
Civil Division
Office of the Attorney General
Department of Law (DOL)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on SB
132.
GRACE MERKES, Vice Chair
Alaska Human Rights Commission
(Address not provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on SB 132.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:04:41 AM. Representatives
Gatto, Elkins, Lynn, and Seaton were present at the call to
order. Representatives Ramras, Gardner, and Gruenberg arrived
as the meeting was in progress.
8:05:24 AM
HB 28-MUNICIPAL DIVIDEND PROGRAM
8:05:30 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the first order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 28, "An Act relating to the municipal dividend
program; and providing for an effective date."
8:05:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CARL MOSES, Alaska State Legislature, introduced
HB 28, as sponsor. He noted that he has sponsored the subject
of the bill for many years, and each year it becomes more
important for the community. He indicated that communities are
closing their doors because of lack of funds, and the proposed
bill would give permanent fund earnings to local governments to
spend as they see fit.
8:06:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MOSES offered some examples of approximately how
much money various communities could expect to receive:
Anchorage, $70 million; Matanuska/Susitna, $20 million;
Fairbanks, $20 million; and the rural area of Kenai, $15
million. The smaller municipalities would receive a minimum of
$40,000. He stated, "It's so important I can't understand why
all members aren't co-sponsors."
8:07:53 AM
CHAIR SEATON directed attention to a page [included in the
committee packet, entitled, "Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation
Bill Analysis - HB 28", which compares current statute versus
the proposed legislation's plan to have a municipal dividend.]
He observed an escalation from 2005-2015. He asked, "Is that
due simply to population growth, if this is at $250 per person,
or ... am I missing something that's built in there?"
8:08:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MOSES answered, "Well, it will fluctuate
according to the ... number of recipients in each community."
8:08:45 AM
CHAIR SEATON offered his understanding that there would be a
minimum of $40,000 per community and $250 per person. He
observed that the numbers increase from 2005 to 2015. He
clarified, "But I didn't see an inflationary index rating in the
bill, and I'm just wondering if I missed it or if that's all
calculated on just population increase."
8:09:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MOSES said, "There's no inflation."
8:09:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked what the justification is for having
a $40,000 minimum.
8:09:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MOSES responded, "It just follows the way that
way we have been doing municipal help in the past. We've always
had a minimum per community."
8:09:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO pointed out that the smaller communities
would receive more than $250 per person. He asked if there is
something inherent about the smallest communities that says,
"The smaller you are, the more you need municipal revenue
sharing."
8:10:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MOSES replied that there is a minimum amount
necessary to justify incorporating a community, and the $40,000
minimum would encourage communities.
8:11:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO tried to recall when the committee had last
discussed the definition of community.
8:11:37 AM
CHAIR SEATON said that was during a hearing on another bill and
the definition of community given at that time was that it must
include a minimum of 25.
8:12:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MOSES said he thinks the minimum number necessary
to be counted as a community has been 25 for some years. In
response to a follow-up question from Chair Seaton, he indicated
that it would be acceptable to specify that number in an
amendment.
8:12:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked Representative Moses to confirm for
the record that the bill would not affect anybody's permanent
fund dividend (PFD) at all.
8:13:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MOSES answered that's correct.
8:14:30 AM
KEVIN RITCHIE, Executive Director, Alaska Municipal League
(AML), stated that AML has, for quite awhile, supported the
proposed legislation. He noted that strong communities are
probably more a part of the Alaska State Constitution than any
other state's constitution. A number of small communities in
rural Alaska have already been lost, while the larger
communities are facing significant tax challenges and local
taxpayers are being taxed too much. The proposed legislation
would allow the state to pass money to communities to use as
they will. He indicated that would act as tax relief and would
bypass federal government. He offered further details.
8:16:15 AM
MR. RITCHIE directed attention to [a three-page, double-sided
handout in the committee packet, entitled, "Revenue Sharing Fact
Sheet"]. He noted that [pages 2 and 3] show a survey that was
conducted by a statewide professional polling organization. He
noted that three out of four people surveyed suggested that
[revenue sharing] was a good thing to do for both small and
large communities.
8:17:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN referred to three of the categories of those
polled, as shown in the survey: conservative, moderate, and
progressive. He asked if "progressive" means liberal.
8:17:37 AM
MR. RITCHIE responded, "I suspect it was." He explained, "Those
were the three choices given people that were responding to that
survey, and they chose the one."
8:17:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked what the communities [with the
smallest populations] are likely to do with $40,000.
8:18:13 AM
MR. RITCHIE responded that if a community is going to be viable,
it needs staff, fuel, electricity, and phone service, for
example. He said $40,000 is considered a bottom line to cover
those basic costs.
8:19:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if Mr. Ritchie's opinion is that the
small communities would use the money for personnel, rather than
to build a well or a dock, for example.
8:19:19 AM
MR. RITCHIE said he can't answer that. Notwithstanding that, he
said it would be fair to say, "Whatever the people needed the
most to increase their quality of life, that's probably where
the money would go ...."
8:20:05 AM
ADAM BERG, Staff to Representative Carl Moses, Alaska State
Legislature, testifying on behalf of Representative Moses,
sponsor, specified that HB 28 addresses municipalities, not
communities. He said there is a definition available from
Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development
(DCCED) of a municipality. Basically, a municipality has the
ability to tax itself. In response to a question from
Representative Gatto, he said Bill Rolfzen from DCCED could
further address the issue of the makeup of a municipality.
8:21:55 AM
MR. BERG, in response to a question from Chair Seaton, referred
to Section 2 of the bill, which read as follows:
*Sec.2. AS 37.13.145 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(e) After the transfers under (b) and (c) of
this section, on June 30 of each year, the corporation
shall transfer from the earnings reserve account to
the municipal dividend fund established under AS
29.60.800 the amount needed to fund municipal
dividends for the next fiscal year, or the balance in
the earnings reserve account, whichever is less.
MR. BERG confirmed that (b) refers to the dividend program,
while (c) refers to inflation proofing.
8:22:35 AM
BILL ROLFZEN, Municipal Assistance, National Forest Receipts,
Fish Tax, PILT, Juneau Office, Division of Community Advocacy,
Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development
(DCCED), reconfirmed that the bill deals with municipalities
only. He said municipalities are incorporated political
subdivisions of the state, defined under 29.71.800.13, which he
read as follows:
A municipality means a political subdivision
incorporated under laws of the state that is a home
rule or general law city, a home rule or general law
borough, or unified municipality.
MR. ROLFZEN said there are rigorous standards established under
Title 20, Chapter 5, 29.05. For example, a first class city
must have at least 400 permanent residents; a second class city
must have at least 25 registered voters sign the incorporation
petition.
8:23:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if the term "population" would
include every man, woman, and child, and the term "voter" only
those who are voters.
8:24:18 AM
MR. ROLFZEN responded as follows:
For the purposes of an ongoing program, we look at
permanent residence of the community, not necessarily
voters. My illustration was just how to get to the
point of being a city in the first place.
8:24:40 AM
CHAIR SEATON closed public testimony. He reviewed the previous
testimony heard.
8:25:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said she finds it interesting that the
aforementioned survey did not include any question that relates
to using permanent fund money. She said she wonders how the
answers may or may not have been different had that question
been included, given that 83 percent of the people voiced that
they did not want the fund touched.
8:25:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS moved to report HB 28 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HB 28 was reported out of the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
SB 172-INITIATIVE/REFERENDUM BALLOT SUMMARY
8:26:57 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the next order of business was
SENATE BILL NO. 172, "An Act relating to the presentation of
initiatives and referenda on the ballot."
8:26:59 AM
JOE BALASH, Staff to Senator Gene Therriault, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Senator Therriault, sponsor,
paraphrased the sponsor statement, which read as follows:
AS 15.45.180(a) currently provides that once an
initiative petition is certified as containing the
number of valid signatures required for placement on
the ballot, the lieutenant governor shall prepare both
a ballot title and a proposition for the election
ballot. The same mechanism applies at AS 15.45.410(a)
for referenda. Under existing law, the ballot title
must indicate the "general subject of the
proposition," and may not exceed six words. The
proposition must give a "true and impartial summary"
of the proposed law, in not more than 100 words.
With the increasing complexity of laws being proposed
by initiative, it is difficult to provide an accurate
description of the contents of a proposed law in only
six words. Likewise, the Legislature is currently
taking on more controversial and complex legislation
that some voter groups may attempt to overturn through
use of the referendum.
The current word length limitations on ballot titles
contributes to the likelihood that voters will not
fully understand the scope and effect of initiative
propositions and referenda that are placed before
them. Allowing the lieutenant governor up to 25 words
for the ballot title will provide the opportunity for
a more accurate description of the contents of the
proposed law.
8:30:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked how long the lieutenant governor has
to act on a ballot title and proposition that has been given to
him/her.
8:30:57 AM
MR. BALASH said he doesn't know.
8:31:08 AM
CHAIR SEATON offered his understanding that there is no time
frame currently, but there may be an amendment to address that
issue. He asked Mr. Balash if he has seen the amendments.
8:31:42 AM
MR. BALASH said he has recently seen an amendment [later named
Amendment 1], which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
After line 8 insert a new subsection to read:
AS 15.45.180(c)
"The lieutenant governor shall submit the ballot title
and proposition to the director not later than 30 days
after the date of the adjournment of the first regular
legislative session convened after the petition is
filed"
MR. BALASH said, "On it's face it makes sense," considering the
timeframe in which the petition circulators have to get the
signatures turned back in to the lieutenant governor.
8:32:16 AM
CHAIR SEATON reviewed that an initiative petition has to be
filed "before," in order to give the legislature time to enact
substantially similar legislation. If the legislature adopts
such legislation, then the proposition doesn't go forward; if it
does not, then the lieutenant governor prepares the language
that will go on the ballot within a certain time frame. He
indicated that [Amendment 1] would give a timeframe, without
which "time can get pushed back."
8:33:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked: "If there is legislative session
after the petition is filed and a substantially similar law
passes, what is the timeline and who determines whether it's
substantially similar?"
8:33:41 AM
CHAIR SEATON offered his understanding that that's determined by
the lieutenant governor, and by the courts if there is a
challenge. He noted that there have been some challenges in the
past.
8:33:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN noted that there are two potential
amendments in the committee packet, and he asked for a
comparison of the two.
8:34:11 AM
MR. BALASH referred to the other amendment in the committee
packet [later named Amendment 2], which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
After line 14 insert a new subsection to read:
AS 15.45.410(c)
"The lieutenant governor shall submit the ballot title
and proposition to the director not later than 60 days
after the date the petition is filed."
MR. BALASH explained that would be [60 days] from the date that
the petition is filed with the lieutenant governor. He offered
an example whereby session began on January [10], which meant
that petitions had to be turned in to the lieutenant governor
before the gavel fell on January 10. Sixty days after that,
regardless of whether or not the lieutenant governor has
actually certified that the signatures are "equal in number to
that required," he/she would have to come up with the ballot
title and language. He concluded, "So, in this case we would be
talking about the difference between ... approximately March 10
and, hopefully, June 10."
8:35:25 AM
CHAIR SEATON clarified that the amendments would modify two
different sections; therefore, they are not conflicting
amendments.
8:36:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO moved to adopt Amendment 1 [text provided
previously]. There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
8:36:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO moved to adopt Amendment 2 [text provided
previously]. There being no objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.
8:37:46 AM
CHAIR SEATON, after ascertaining that there was no one to
testify on SB 172, closed public testimony.
8:37:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS moved to report SB 172, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal note. There being no objection, HCS SB 172(STA) was
reported out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 176-ELIMINATE DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME
8:38:50 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the next order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 176, "An Act exempting the state and its political
subdivisions from daylight saving time."
8:38:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WOODIE SALMON, Alaska State Legislature, as
sponsor of HB 176, said he thinks there was a good amount of
discussion at the last hearing on HB 176 and the bill is in
"good form."
8:39:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO moved to adopt the committee substitute
(CS), Version 24-LS0490\G, Bannister, 5/4/05, as a work draft.
There being no objection, Version G was before the committee.
8:39:44 AM
CHAIR SEATON explained that Version G "changes the bill from us
adopting and implementing something that will affect everybody's
individual lives every day to [an] advisory vote for the people
at the next regular election ...."
8:40:25 AM
LYNN WILLIS, Eagle River, testified on behalf of himself in
support of the "repeal of daylight saving time by direct
legislative action or by vote of the people of Alaska." He
addressed one argument against repeal, which is the idea that
there is a clear and present need for daylight saving time to
keep Alaska businesses from operating at a disadvantage. Mr.
Willis countered that technology has overcome any need for the
state to mandate the use of daylight saving time to support
business. He explained, "Use of the Internet and advances in
communication technology allow many, if not most, business
transactions, to be initiated, conducted, and/or completed at
any time of the day on any day of the week. If Alaska suspends
the use of daylight saving time, while the Lower 48 continues to
use it, any business in Alaska operating between the core hours
of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Alaska standard time will have a
minimum of three to six business hours that overlap with these
same core hours in any time zone in the Lower 48."
MR. WILLIS opined that the use of daylight saving time does not
automatically benefit any businesses that routinely interface
with the Lower 48 states. He offered a hypothetical example.
He asked the committee to remember: "Since 1983 - when all of
Alaska, west of the Yukon Territory, except the far Aleutians,
advanced its clocks permanently - most of Alaska has been on
permanent daylight saving time. From April to October, most of
Alaska is on double daylight saving time." Mr. Willis said he
has to commute and work under artificial lighting longer because
of daylight saving time. He noted, "If we were to permanently
stay on double daylight saving time, as [has] been suggested,
sunrise on December 21, 2005, will be at 11:14 [a.m.] in
Anchorage.
8:44:43 AM
CHAIR SEATON interjected to tell Mr. Willis that the question
before the committee is whether to put a ballot proposition
forward for an advisory vote of the citizenry to eliminate
daylight saving time to be on Alaska standard time. He
explained that the committee needs to move on with its busy
calendar. He said, "I just want to make sure that I understand
you correctly that you support going to an advisory vote to
eliminate daylight saving time."
8:45:48 AM
MR. WILLIS responded, "If that's my only alternative, yes I do."
8:45:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked Mr. Willis how he would feel if
Alaska were to move from Alaska time to Pacific time, and at the
same time eliminate participation in daylight saving time. She
said that would be one way to reduce the discrepancy between
Alaska's time and other time zones in the country.
8:46:22 AM
MR. WILLIS said he would oppose that. He explained:
The reason we have time zones is so that we can have
some synchronization between the position of the sun
and the time of the day. We've already skewed that
two hours. If we advanced another time zone, to the
Pacific time zone, it would be even worse. It's a
fact that we're not geographically located with the
rest of the United States; we are in another time
zone. And I think by doing that you're just making
the situation worse.
8:47:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG mentioned an energy bill that the U.S.
Congress is considering, which would have the country on
daylight saving time eight months of the year. He observed,
"So, if we go backwards, we'll not be just one hour behind
Pacific time but we'll be two hours, and we'll be five hours
behind New York." He surmised that that may all right for those
who have sophisticated use of the Internet, but he asked how it
would affect the thousands of Alaskans who don't.
8:48:09 AM
MR. WILLIS said he thinks most of the thousands of Alaskans
don't have "any communication that's necessary with the Lower
48." He said only so much can be done to get along with the
Lower 48, and he reminded the committee of Alaska's economy with
the Far East. He said, "We have to respect our position
relative to them."
8:48:27 AM
ROBERT TOBEY testified on behalf of himself in opposition to
doing away with daylight saving time. He said he is one of the
thousands of Alaskans who would experience some problems if
there was a five-hour time gap between Alaska and the East
Coast. He said, "It will cause me far more inconvenience and
sleep loss than pushing my clock ahead one hour once a year."
Mr. Tobey revealed that he has a small business that frequently
requires him to deal with suppliers on the East Coast and in
other portions of the Lower 48. He stated, "It's difficult
enough to get service for my clients as it is. Often orders
have to be in early in the morning, Eastern Time to get timely
delivery in Alaska. Adding another hour means every time I have
to deal with the Outside companies, I would need to add an extra
hour that I have to be at the office or ... get up ... earlier."
Mr. Tobey said he is certain there are many other Alaskans who
would be inconvenienced as much or more than he would be.
MR. TOBEY stated that he would wholeheartedly support staying on
daylight saving time, thus being only three hours behind the
East Coast and the same as the West Coast for a good part of the
year. He said that would be a longer period if the U.S.
Congress passes the previously mentioned energy bill. He said,
"This action would meet the need of business travelers and those
not wanting to lose an hour of sleep once every spring."
8:50:06 AM
CHAIR SEATON, after ascertaining that there was no one else to
testify on the bill, closed public testimony.
8:50:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS moved to report CSHB 176, Version 24-
LS0490\G, Bannister, 5/4/05 out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS, in response to Representative Gruenberg's
saying he would like more committee discussion, removed his
motion.
8:51:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated his concern that the bill only
gives the voters one choice, which would be to eliminate
daylight saving time. He said he would like to know how the
sponsor would feel about giving voters other choices: To keep
daylight saving time all year round, or to put the state on
various time zones.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested another page could be created
in "the official election pamphlet" so that "the people could
check this off and really take a little more time to study the
issue and then just simply mail that in."
8:52:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SALMON said he doesn't want to complicate the
issue by giving too many choices.
8:54:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said Alaska is unusual because the
state is so far north. He said he doesn't know how people would
feel about wanting to be closer to the rest of the U.S., "time
wise."
8:55:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS moved to report CSHB 176, Version 24-
LS0490\G, Bannister, 5/4/05 out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
8:56:09 AM
MOIRA SMITH, Staff to Representative Woodie Salmon, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Salmon, sponsor, said
there was a zero fiscal for the original bill, but no fiscal
note was created for Version G.
8:56:27 AM
CHAIR SEATON said the committee would request that a fiscal note
be drawn up for Version G. He asked if there was any objection
to the motion. There being none, CSHB 176(STA) was reported out
of the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 273-PFD: DELAY PAYMENT FOR ALLOWABLE ABSENCES
8:57:01 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the next order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 273, "An Act relating to the dividends of individuals
claiming allowable absences; and providing for an effective
date."
8:57:06 AM
LINDA SYLVESTER, Staff to Representative Bruce Weyhrauch, Alaska
State Legislature, presented HB 273 on behalf of Representative
Weyhrauch, sponsor. Ms. Sylvester said the Alaska permanent
fund dividend (PFD) was initiated to provide Alaskans with a
share of the state's resource wealth, primarily derived from
oil. She explained that, through statute, some exemptions were
allowed which made it possible for some Alaskans living out of
the state to still receive a PFD. She said all that is
necessary for individuals to do to receive approval for an
allowable absence is to make a simple statement that they intend
to return to the state. She said it is an honor system, and
asked, "But does the system really work?"
MS. SYLVESTER said the Permanent Fund Division recently issued
an estimate that the average rate of return of individuals out
of state on allowable absences was 30 percent. The division
estimated that over a nine-year period, the sum of the dividends
paid to those absent more than 180 days who never returned to
the state was $86.1 million.
MS. SYLVESTER noted that HB 273 has a "requirement for return."
Knowing that a sizeable nest egg has accrued in their absence,
both college students and military personnel may be encouraged
to return to Alaska, which could increase the amount of money
spent in the state.
MS. SYLVESTER noted that a potential constitutional problem was
raised by the Office of the Attorney General: If the Permanent
Fund Division determines that an individual living out of state
is eligible [to receive a PFD], that person may be considered by
the courts to have a property interest in the dividend. She
said the solution to that was to amend the eligibility statutes
to make a person out of state on an allowable absence to be
"conditionally eligible." The condition for eligibility would
be completed once that person returned to Alaska, she explained.
However, if an individual out of state on an allowable absence
were to die, their estate would be paid.
9:01:46 AM
MS. SYLVESTER acknowledged that Chair Seaton had introduced the
idea for this bill last year. She indicated that one aspect of
his bill that was "picture perfect" was that it didn't assume
that people were committing fraud or misleading the Permanent
Fund Division by stating that they will return to the state, it
just asked them "to complete that thought and come back to the
state in order for them to collect their share of Alaska's
resources."
9:02:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO moved to adopt the committee substitute
(CS) for HB 273, Version 24-LS0871\G, Cook, 5/3/05, as a work
draft. There being no objection, Version G was before the
committee.
9:03:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said if a military person stationed in
Alaska is serving in Iraq, for example, odds are that his/her
spouse and children are in Alaska and the need for the money
from the PFD is imminent because bills need to be paid. He
asked Ms. Sylvester to address that concern of his.
9:04:36 AM
MS. SYLVESTER said prior to 1982, Alaskan's did not receive a
PFD. The dividend, she added, is not a guaranteed entitlement
to the citizens of Alaska. She indicated that it will be a
hardship for those living out of state [to have to wait for
their PFD payments]. She reminded the committee that those who
collect a PFD but don't return to the state are a detriment to
other Alaskans who continue to live in the state.
9:05:38 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if it is known how many military personnel's
spouses and children leave the state to accompany them while
they are away on an allowable absence versus how many remain in
the state.
9:06:29 AM
MS. SYLVESTER deferred comment to a representative of the
Permanent Fund Dividend Division. Notwithstanding that, she
said, "16 percent actually do return to the State of Alaska."
9:07:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said he understands that the PFD is not an
entitlement; nonetheless, people do depend on it. He stated
that many people in the military service receive such a low
salary that their spouses must stay in Alaska and work. He
restated his concern for the issue.
9:07:54 AM
MS. SYLVESTER responded that this issue is a policy call. She
added, "The permanent fund dividend, as I understand it, is not
intended to support the United States Military; it's intended to
return a portion of the resource wealth of Alaska to Alaskans."
9:08:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN stated, "I realize that [the] PFD is not
meant to support the military, but it's the job of the military
to support us."
9:08:53 AM
SHARON BARTON, Director, Alaska Permanent Fund Division,
Department of Revenue, regarding Chair Seaton's previously
stated question, said data shows that 17 out of 72 active
military personnel [left Alaska] leaving no dependents behind.
9:10:17 AM
CHAIR SEATON observed, "The sample that you have is not talking
about people deployed into hot zones, or anything else. This is
all active duty military that have rotated through Alaska - they
and their dependents. Is that correct?"
9:10:33 AM
MS. BARTON answered in the affirmative.
9:10:40 AM
CHAIR SEATON said the committee had previously heard some
information showing that the PFDs that students on financial
aide receive is considered income and is subtracted from that
financial aide. He asked Ms. Barton if she has any information
regarding that.
MS. BARTON answered she does not.
CHAIR SEATON indicated that students on financial aide would
have a nest egg waiting for them when they came back to Alaska.
9:11:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER pointed out that that would only apply to
those students with financial aid; those without it would rely
on getting that money to support them.
9:12:18 AM
MS. BARTON said, as she interprets the bill, a person who was
absent, for example, any time during 2004, would have their 2005
dividend held until the he/she had been in Alaska without an
allowable absence for an entire qualifying year.
9:13:19 AM
CHAIR SEATON clarified that a person can be absent for 180 days
in a year and still qualify as a physical resident of Alaska.
He said, "So, ... basically you have to be in the state for 185
days within the calendar year."
9:13:35 AM
MS. BARTON confirmed that's correct.
9:13:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO proffered that an Alaskan student who
leaves the state to go to school for four to six years, coming
home only during vacations, would have to return to the state
and stay for 185 days before receiving his/her held-back
dividends.
9:14:05 AM
MS. BARTON answered that's correct.
9:14:11 AM
CHAIR SEATON said people complain about "brain drain" - when the
best and brightest in the state stay out of the state because
there is no real incentive for them to come back. He said the
impetus of the bill is to get them to come back. He said the
situation is the same in regard to the military.
9:15:27 AM
MS. BARTON, in response to a question from Representative
Gardner, explained that those [who are away on allowable
absences] are not the same as someone who has severed residency
and is returning. They simply need to return and be in the
state for the time required.
9:16:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked if a person could come back to Alaska,
pick up his/her five to six PFDs, for example, and turn around
and leave the state again.
9:16:31 AM
CHAIR SEATON said that person could, but only after he/she
spends 185 days back in Alaska. He said a person comes back for
that period of time most likely will get a job and form
relationships, and is therefore likely to stay in the state. In
response to a Representative Lynn, he said there is nothing in
the bill that says once a person comes back and reestablishes
residency "we nail your foot to the floor and you can never
leave again."
9:18:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to [subsection (c)]
of Version G, on page 4, lines 10-14, which read as follows:
(c) If an individual who is conditionally
eligible for a dividend that has not become payable
under (a) of this section dies before conditional
eligibility for the dividend is terminated under (b)
of this section, the department shall pay the dividend
to a personal representative of the estate or to a
successor claiming personal property under AS
13.16.680.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that AS 13.16.680 read:
Sec. 13.16.680. Collection of personal property by
affidavit.
(a) Thirty days after the death of a decedent,
any person indebted to the decedent or having
possession of tangible personal property or an
instrument evidencing a debt, obligation, stock, or
chose in action belonging to the decedent shall make
payment of the indebtedness or deliver the tangible
personal property or an instrument evidencing a debt,
obligation, stock, or chose in action to a person
claiming to be the successor of the decedent upon
being presented an affidavit made by or on behalf of
the successor stating that
(1) the value of the entire estate, wherever
located, less liens and encumbrances, does not exceed
$15,000;
(2) 30 days have elapsed since the death of the
decedent;
(3) no application or petition for the
appointment of a personal representative is pending or
has been granted in any jurisdiction; and
(4) the claiming successor is entitled to payment
or delivery of the property.
(b) A transfer agent of any security shall change
the registered ownership on the books of a corporation
from the decedent to the successor or successors upon
the presentation of an affidavit as provided in (a) of
this section.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, regarding the amount of $15,000 shown
in statute, said that that could easily be the total of 15-
years' worth of PFDs. He said, "You could simply file an
affidavit from somebody who hasn't been here for 14 years, say
this guy was going to come back, and get fourteen grand and go
back to Indiana. And there's no way anybody could refute your
statement of the decedent's intent."
9:21:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 1, to
eliminate: "or to a successor claiming personal property under
AS 13.16.680." He said this issue has come up during another
bill. He said he doesn't want this to become a big deal again.
9:21:41 AM
CHAIR SEATON objected to Amendment 1. He explained that someone
coming to claim a deceased person's money does not certify that
the deceases person intended to return. That certification was
already made when the deceased person was living and first filed
out the application for an allowable absence.
9:22:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said under the proposed legislation,
not only would a person have to certify his/her intent, but
he/she also would have to "come back here and actually be here."
He said, "They may have had that intent in the past, but under
this bill, they won't have completed step two of the process,
which is the whole purpose of this bill ...." He said he hopes
that Chair Seaton would reconsider his objection.
9:23:27 AM
CHAIR SEATON stated for the record that, beginning in 2008, the
limit for allowable absences will be 10 years.
9:23:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO pointed out that the deceased would have
filed up to ten consecutive times before dying and, thus, the
estate would be entitled to the money.
9:24:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG mentioned a recent movie in which an
evil person's goal in life was to collect for an estate.
9:25:15 AM
CHAIR SEATON said, "This doesn't limit the estate, this
eliminates a third party from coming in, and I remove my
objection .... I'm glad you caught this; ... there's never been
an intention to have a creditor, or some third party come in and
claim personal property for somebody."
9:25:50 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if there was any further objection to
Amendment 1. No objection was stated and Amendment 1 was
adopted.
9:28:08 AM
CHAIR SEATON closed public testimony.
9:28:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2,
which she explained would have to be conceptual because it was
not drafted to fit the lines of Version G. Conceptual Amendment
2 read as follows:
Page 1, line 6, following "dividends":
Insert "and except as provided in (d) of this
section"
Page 2, following line 5:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(d) The dividend for a current year and for the
three years immediately following the current year
shall be paid to an individual each year under
AS 43.23.055(2) if
(1) without claiming an allowable absence
under AS 43.23.008(a)(1) - (8) or (10) - (13), the
individual was eligible for a dividend for the year
immediately preceding the qualifying year for the
current year;
(2) the individual was absent from the
state during the qualifying year for the current year
as allowed in AS 43.23.008(a)(1) - (8) or (10) - (13);
and
(3) the individual is otherwise eligible
for the dividend."
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER described [Conceptual Amendment 2] as a
"compromise position." She said she considers her children, who
are studying Outside, to be Alaska residents. She said she
would like those people studying or serving in the military
Outside to get a PFD, but for a limited time period. She said
she figures the longer they are out of the state, the less
likely they are to come back, and she noted that four years is
the standard length of a college career. She stated, "So, even
though this disturbs the purity of the original bill, I think it
meets the needs of a lot of people who are gone temporarily and
have every intention of returning.
9:30:17 AM
CHAIR SEATON objected to [Conceptual Amendment 2].
9:30:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said there are some problems with the
bill that Conceptual Amendment 2 attempts to address. He said
it seems the concern is about people coming back to the state.
He said, "The longer you're away, the more there is a legal
presumption that you do not intend to return. And at some
point, that presumption could ripen into a conclusive
presumption, giving rise to a claim by the state for
reimbursement for any dividends paid after you left." He
offered further details.
9:32:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said she thinks if there was a 4-year
limitation, the cost of actually filing a lawsuit and collecting
would not be warranted. She added, "I think the state would
just sort of write that off if somebody collects for four years
and doesn't come back."
9:33:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that may be right. Conversely, he
said he knows of attorneys who take "collection cases for the
state on contingency."
9:33:32 AM
CHAIR SEATON said the problem with [Conceptual Amendment 2] is
it doesn't give incentive for four-year college students to
return to Alaska. He said the entire purpose of bill is to stay
away from the idea that "we have fraud." The bill, he
clarified, has to do with residents of Alaska getting a share of
the state's resources for "being an Alaska resident in Alaska."
The allowable absences are made for "hardship" and "for
determinations that we think are in the best interest of the
people of Alaska." He offered further details.
9:35:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER concurred with everything that Chair
Seaton said. She said:
It's a pure program. It's simple, it's clean, and
that's great. As a private citizen I'd love to see it
passed. As a legislator, I represent a lot of people
who are concerned about their families: they're
concerned about people who are out of state taking
care of elderly relatives; they're concerned about
their college kids; they're concerned about their sons
and daughters serving outside of the state. And I
think what my amendment does is make the bill
palatable to people who would otherwise adamantly
oppose it. And I see it as a compromise and a middle
ground that will work for more people, even though -
yes - it detracts from the purity of the original
concept.
9:36:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN, regarding [Chair Seaton's argument], said,
"It reminds me of a saying I've seen in one of the places in
Anchorage that says something like, 'Cheat the other fellow and
pass the savings on to the state.'"
9:36:59 AM
CHAIR SEATON pointed out that any money that is not going out
[to someone not living in the state] would go back into
"everybody's personal dividend pool." He explained, "None of
that money comes back until people disqualify themselves." He
offered his understanding that there are currently 13 allowable
absences. He said, "The question is: 'Do we want to have all
of these people come back to Alaska and establish their
residency before they get the dividend?'"
9:38:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER [moved to adopt] an amendment to
[Conceptual] Amendment 2, to delete "the three years" and insert
"one year" in the new subsection (d).
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said that would give the college students
a reason to come back and a little bit of a nest egg. She
offered her understanding that those stationed in Iraq are not
there longer than two years, "and so we're not interrupting the
needs of their families during that time."
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO expressed concerns about fraud. He said he
likes Representative Gardner's amendment [to Conceptual
Amendment 2].
9:41:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER, regarding someone who goes out of state
on an allowable absence to care for an elderly ill relative,
said, "After two years you figure the relative has moved on or
recovered ...."
9:41:55 AM
MS. SYLVESTER reiterated that there is a problem with the system
as it stands currently. She said the concept of "requiring a
return" is not new; years ago Alaska offered a forgiveness
clause to students, but required students who left the state for
school to return for a period of time. She said this is akin to
saying, "I know what you're mouth is saying, but want to see
what your feet are doing." She emphasized, "It's a huge, huge
issue."
9:44:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER called a question.
CHAIR SEATON, in response to a request for clarification from
Representative Gruenberg, reviewed the amendment to Conceptual
Amendment 2.
CHAIR SEATON asked if there was any objection to the amendment
to Conceptual Amendment 2. There being none, it was so ordered.
CHAIR SEATON restated his objection to [Conceptual Amendment 2,
as amended].
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gardner, Gruenberg,
Gatto, and Lynn voted in favor of Conceptual Amendment 2, as
amended. Representative Seaton voted against it. Therefore,
Conceptual Amendment 2, as amended, passed by a vote of 4-1.
9:45:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved Conceptual Amendment 3, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
The provisions of this statute do not apply to any
military service member who is assigned to duty in a
location where combat pay is authorized, or to any
military service member whose military dependents
remain in Alaska while the service member serves
outside Alaska, or to any military service member who
is receiving care in a military hospital.
9:46:36 AM
MS. SYLVESTER said the department of law should be consulted
regarding any change to the bill that would single out any
particular party.
9:46:50 AM
CHRISTOPHER C. POAG, Assistant Attorney General, Commercial/Fair
Business Section, Civil Division - Juneau, Department of Law
(DOL), stated he has a concern about creating a series of
exceptions to exceptions. He said the supreme court has
routinely allowed the State of Alaska to treat residency for
purposes of the PFD differently than for normal state resident
purposes. The supreme court has also said that the purpose of
the PFD program is to encourage people to maintain their Alaska
residency and "reduce turnover." Allowable absences have been
made "because we decided that those categories of persons are
likely to return to Alaska and remain indefinitely. He stated
that if exceptions are made, they have to be based on "the
purpose." He said the purpose of the exception that is being
proposed in Amendment 3 is that "those categories of persons are
more likely to return and should be accepted and treated
differently than the other categories that we're making come
back to receive their PFD." He continued:
We should not hang our hat on their need for the PFD,
because the supreme court has not spoken to need, as
far as eligibility. The supreme court has spoken to
the purpose being to maintain Alaska residency and
reduce turnover. So, if there are statistics or
evidence that shows the category ... [Representative
Lynn is] referring to has more ... likelihood of
returning to Alaska because of their circumstances or
because of the situation, it would probably survive
the scrutiny.
9:49:05 AM
CHAIR SEATON, in response to Representative Gruenberg, asked him
to hold his questions. He then asked Representative Lynn to
withdraw his amendment so the committee could hear the next
bill, with the understanding that Representative Lynn could move
to adopt Amendment 3 again when the committee next hears HB 273.
9:49:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN withdrew his motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 3.
CHAIR SEATON announced that HB 273 was heard and held.
9:49:54 AM
SB 132-HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
9:50:00 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the last order of business was
SENATE BILL NO. 132(efd fld), "An Act relating to complaints
filed with, investigations, hearings, and orders of, and the
interest rate on awards of the State Commission for Human
Rights; and making conforming amendments."
9:50:02 AM
SCOTT J. NORDSTRAND, Deputy Attorney General, Civil Division,
Office of the Attorney General, Department of Law (DOL),
referred to a prior hearing on SB 132 and stated:
The last change that was made here to ... existing law
was to provide clarification as to the remedies
available to those folks that bring complaints to the
Human Rights Commission. ... You may recall ... last
year there was some concern that we had removed the
term "any appropriate relief" from the bill and then
specified certain remedies. There was some concern by
the commission and others that that limited the kinds
of remedies they could ... make and that ultimately
there might be some kind of remedy we hadn't
anticipated and put in the bill.
What we did was we put "any appropriate relief" back
in, and then we listed things. ... We tried to be as
comprehensive as possible about the kinds of remedies
that courts had allowed, so that folks who come and
look at the law can actually have an idea of the kinds
of things that they could seek - reinstatements,
seniority, back pay, front pay with limits, ... [for
example] - because a lot of these folks don't have a
lawyer representing them, and this would be helpful to
them.
MR. NORDSTRAND offered to answer questions from the committee.
9:51:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER stated it seems the bill is really
attempting to address the fact that the agency doesn't have
adequate funding to really do what it is mandated to do in terms
of human rights investigations. She stated her concern that
this gives the executive director a lot of power once decisions
are made and "everything really kind of funnels right there."
9:52:46 AM
MR. NORDSTRAND said it is a question of prosecutorial
discretion. He mentioned the [Department of Fish & Game v.
Meyer] case, which resulted in the supreme court's taking away
the prosecutorial discretion of the commission. He read a
response of the court as follows:
We are sympathetic to the commission's claim of lack
of resources .... We recognize that it might be
highly desirable for the commission staff to have the
power to administratively dismiss cases which have
individual merit but no widespread impact.
MR. NORDSTRAND added, "But they found that the law didn't allow
that." He continued:
And what we're saying is: "There is a solid public
policy in support of giving the commission that kind
of resource." The commission, in that case, basically
argued that they had become ... "a complaint-taking
agency"; that they didn't have the power to say what
was a good complaint, what was a bad complaint, what's
worth the time and resources of the state to pursue
and what isn't. And in the face of a system that
allows the individual to take cases - whatever the
merit - to court on their own, it was decided that no
matter how many resources you give to this agency,
there's going to be a case that's just silly to go
forward with. But there's that nub of a fact that
would compel under the current law that it go forward.
And so, this is a balance. It's no different than,
for example, the attorney general's power to decide
which crimes are prosecuted in this state. Same idea.
... Not all circumstances that might be prosecuted as
crimes are, for various reasons. ... Plea bargains
are a function of resource issues, to some degree.
And so, this is recognizing that fact.
And it's also consistent with, for example, what the
[U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)]
does. They don't have to take every case. In fact,
they take a small number of the cases that are brought
to them. So, ... it will allow the commission to
spend the time actually actively routing out
discrimination, as opposed to becoming, as they argued
in the Meyer case, a complaint-taking agency.
9:55:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO observed that without some sort of
limitation, [the commission] would have to accept all
complaints.
9:55:43 AM
MR. NORDSTRAND said the law does require "some measure of
evidence." He added, "But remember the standard is it has to be
completely lacking in merit."
9:55:49 AM
CHAIR SEATON clarified that Mr. Nordstrand is talking about the
current law, "and this would change that so there would be
some..."
9:57:21 AM
GRACE MERKES, Vice Chair, Alaska Human Rights Commission, said
the commission supports [SB 132]. She added that the commission
has some concern about Section 4, regarding the review process,
but is willing to work with the committee. In response to
Representative Gruenberg, she explained that the commission's
main concern is [there is no firm guideline as to] "when, or
why, or how come we have to review cases."
9:59:38 AM
MR. NORDSTRAND, in response to Chair Seaton and Representative
Gruenberg, noted that the discretionary language in Section 4
[begins on line 27] and read:
The commission, in its discretion, may review the
executive director's order of dismissal and may affirm
the order, remand the complaint for further
investigation, or refer the complaint for conference,
conciliation, and persuasion as provided in AS
18.80.110 if it concludes that substantial evidence
supports the complaint of an unlawful discriminatory
practice.
10:01:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested the language could read, "may
come up with but is not required to". He asked if that would
increase Ms. Merkes' comfort level.
10:02:01 AM
MS. MERKES said she thinks that would mean the same thing;
however, she remarked that it might help the public
[perception].
10:02:06 AM
MR. NORDSTRAND proffered that "may" means exactly what
Representative Gruenberg has suggested.
10:02:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he is certain that Legislative
Legal and Research Services would not have a problem with that
language being added and he wants "people to feel comfortable
with that."
10:02:58 AM
MR. NORDSTRAND, in response to a question from Chair Seaton,
said he has no objection to [Representative Gruenberg's]
concept.
10:03:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1,
as follows:
Page 2, line 28:
Between "may review" and "the executive director's"
Insert ", but is not required to,"
10:03:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO objected to Conceptual Amendment 1. He
said he thinks the language is "fairly conclusive the way it
is."
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gruenberg, Elkins,
Lynn, and Seaton voted in favor of Amendment 1. Representative
Gatto voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 1 passed by a vote
of 4-1.
10:05:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved Amendment 2, as follows:
Page 2, line 26:
Delete "shall"
Insert "may"
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that he wants to give the
executive director discretion.
10:07:26 AM
MR. NORDSTRAND said the department would oppose [Amendment 2].
He explained, "Essentially this is the gate keeping function of
the act." He said all that is necessary to pursue a case
through to hearing is to have a finding of substantial evidence
by the executive director. He continued:
So, what this would permit is: the executive director
found there was not substantial evidence of
discrimination, but nonetheless said, "Let's go
forward anyway." That would seem to be a difficult
policy to (indisc. - overlapping voices).
10:08:00 AM
CHAIR SEATON objected to Amendment 2.
10:08:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG responded, "That's not what the
language says." He clarified that the language is "fails to
discover", and he explained that "discover" is a term of art.
He said, "This is before the discovery stage has begun."
10:08:37 AM
MR. NORDSTRAND said the investigation process is a thorough one
in which the executive director's agent interviews the
complaining party and the lawyer, and receives evidence from the
employer and any other party involved. He said, "In fact, there
is a delivery of evidence, though it's not tested under oath,
and it's not done in deposition."
10:09:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to a remark by Chair
Seaton, directed attention to page 3, line 31, which he said
gives the complainant the right to appear, "with or without
counsel". He revealed that he has sat as a hearing examiner
before the Human Rights Commission. He said in many cases the
agency staff may not have the resources to do the investigation,
but the complainant is allowed to participate with or without
counsel and can conduct independent discovery, "and this would
prevent them from doing that."
10:10:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS suggested that the committee hold the bill
so Representative Gruenberg can meet with Legislative Legal and
Research Services.
10:10:33 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked Representative Gruenberg if any of the issues
he is raising are substantive House State Affairs Standing
Committee issues that couldn't be addressed by the House
Judiciary Standing Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG answered no.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to report SB 132, [as amended], out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes.
[In response to the committee secretary, Chair Seaton clarified
that the pending Amendment 2 was now withdrawn].
10:11:38 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if there was any objection to the motion to
move SB 132, as amended, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being
none, HCS SB 132(STA) was reported out of the House State
Affairs Standing Committee.
10:12:02 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
10:12:23 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|