04/03/2007 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB179 | |
| HB210 | |
| HJR7 | |
| HB45 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 193 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 210 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HJR 7 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 52 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 45 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 179 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
April 3, 2007
8:07 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bob Lynn, Chair
Representative Bob Roses, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Kyle Johansen
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Andrea Doll
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Carl Gatto
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 179
"An Act relating to insurance for public employees, teachers,
and certain retired public employees and teachers and to
supplemental employee benefits; relating to teachers' and public
employees' defined benefit retirement plans, to teachers' and
public employees' defined contribution retirement plans, to
employee and employer contributions to the teachers' retirement
system and the public employees' retirement system, and to the
administration of the Public Employees' Retirement System of
Alaska and the deferred compensation program for state
employees; establishing in the Department of Revenue the
teachers' retirement system past service cost liability account
and the public employees' retirement system past service cost
liability account; relating to benefits of, references to
federal law in, and investments in the teachers' retirement
system and the public employees' retirement system; modifying
the jurisdiction of the independent office of administrative
hearings as related to retirement and related personnel
benefits; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 179(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 210
"An Act relating to the appointment and qualifications of the
adjutant general."
- MOVED HB 210 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 7
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
to avoid the use of personal pronouns and similar references
that denote masculine or feminine gender in that document.
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 45
"An Act authorizing the Department of Military and Veterans'
Affairs to establish and maintain Alaska veterans' cemeteries;
and establishing the Alaska veterans' cemetery fund in the
general fund."
- MOVED CSHB 45(MLV) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 52
"An Act relating to driver's licenses for persons under 18 years
of age."
- BILL HEARING CANCELED
HOUSE BILL NO. 193
"An Act relating to the composition of the Alaska Police
Standards Council; and providing for an effective date."
- BILL HEARING CANCELED
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 179
SHORT TITLE: PUBLIC EMPLOYEE/TEACHER RETIREM'T SYSTEMS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KELLY
03/05/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/05/07 (H) STA, FIN
03/29/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/29/07 (H) Heard & Held
03/29/07 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/31/07 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/31/07 (H) Heard & Held
03/31/07 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/03/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 210
SHORT TITLE: QUALIFICATIONS OF THE ADJUTANT GENERAL
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) DAHLSTROM
03/21/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/21/07 (H) MLV, STA
03/29/07 (H) MLV AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/29/07 (H) Moved Out of Committee
03/29/07 (H) MINUTE(MLV)
03/30/07 (H) MLV RPT 4DP 1NR
03/30/07 (H) DP: FAIRCLOUGH, DAHLSTROM, BUCH, ROSES
03/30/07 (H) NR: KAWASAKI
04/03/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HJR 7
SHORT TITLE: CONST AM: GENDER-NEUTRAL REFERENCES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) GATTO
01/30/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/30/07 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
04/03/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 45
SHORT TITLE: STATE VETERANS' CEMETERY & FUND
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) GUTTENBERG, DOLL
01/16/07 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/5/07
01/16/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/07 (H) MLV, STA, FIN
02/13/07 (H) MLV AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/13/07 (H) Heard & Held
02/13/07 (H) MINUTE(MLV)
02/20/07 (H) MLV AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/20/07 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
02/22/07 (H) MLV AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/22/07 (H) Moved CSHB 45(MLV) Out of Committee
02/22/07 (H) MINUTE(MLV)
02/26/07 (H) MLV RPT CS(MLV) 5DP
02/26/07 (H) DP: LEDOUX, KAWASAKI, RAMRAS, BUCH,
ROSES
04/03/07 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE NANCY DAHLSTROM
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 210 as prime sponsor.
McHUGH PIERRE, Director of Communications
Office of the Commissioner/Adjutant General
Department of Military & Veterans Affairs
Fort Richardson, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
210.
SANDRA WILSON, Intern
to Representative Carl Gatto
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HJR 7 on behalf of
Representative Gatto, prime sponsor.
HEATH HILYARD, Staff
to Representative Gatto
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered information to the committee during
the hearing on HJR 7, on behalf of Representative Gatto, prime
sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID GUTTENBERG
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 45 as joint prime sponsor.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR BOB LYNN called the House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:07:21 AM. Representatives Roses, Coghill,
Johnson, Gruenberg, Doll, and Lynn were present at the call to
order. Representative Johansen arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
8:07:51 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced the passing of former Representative Jim
Elkins, and asked those in the room to stand for a moment of
silence.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed his appreciation for the late
Representative Elkins as a person and a legislator. He said he
will be missed.
HB 179-PUBLIC EMPLOYEE/TEACHER RETIREM'T SYSTEMS
8:09:09 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the first order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 179, "An Act relating to insurance for public
employees, teachers, and certain retired public employees and
teachers and to supplemental employee benefits; relating to
teachers' and public employees' defined benefit retirement
plans, to teachers' and public employees' defined contribution
retirement plans, to employee and employer contributions to the
teachers' retirement system and the public employees' retirement
system, and to the administration of the Public Employees'
Retirement System of Alaska and the deferred compensation
program for state employees; establishing in the Department of
Revenue the teachers' retirement system past service cost
liability account and the public employees' retirement system
past service cost liability account; relating to benefits of,
references to federal law in, and investments in the teachers'
retirement system and the public employees' retirement system;
modifying the jurisdiction of the independent office of
administrative hearings as related to retirement and related
personnel benefits; and providing for an effective date."
8:09:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 25-
LS0252\M.1, Wayne, 4/2/07, which read as follows:
Page 2, line 3:
Delete "a new subsection"
Insert "new subsections"
Page 2, line 4:
Delete "2007"
Insert "2010"
Page 2, line 6:
Delete "five"
Insert "one"
Page 2, following line 6:
Insert new bill subsections to read:
"(f) Beginning with the payroll for the first
pay period in July 2011, a member shall contribute to
the plan, in addition to the combined total of the
amounts calculated in (a) and (e) of this section, an
amount equal to two percent of the member's base
salary.
(g) Beginning with the payroll for the first pay
period in July 2012, a member shall contribute to the
plan, in addition to the combined total of the amounts
calculated in (a), (e), and (f) of this section, an
amount equal to two percent of the member's base
salary."
8:10:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON objected for discussion purposes.
8:10:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES explained the intent of the amendment. He
noted that there are several labor contracts that have either
recently been settled or have the potential of being settled
before the proposed legislation would go into effect. He said
one of the questions in negotiating a labor contract is deciding
how much the take-home pay will be and comparing that take-home
pay with that of the last contract. He said people negotiate
the contracts in good faith; they expend a lot of effort and
equity. For example, Representative Roses noted that the
Anchorage Education Association was in negotiations for two
years. He stated his concern is related to retroactivity. He
explained, "If you know going in that you're going to have
issues that are impacting your take-home pay, you negotiate
differently. And so, to have this go in effect after the fact,
to me becomes ... a retroactive bill; it's something over which
they had no control in negotiations." He clarified that
negotiations are not made on employee contributions; however,
they are made involving "everything else," which has a direct
impact on take-home pay. He concluded, "So, I felt if we were
going to put the 5 percent in, ... it at least ought to be
delayed so that we hold harmless those contracts that have just
gotten settled, or those that may be settled here in the near
future."
The committee took an at-ease from 8:12:33 AM to 8:15:05 AM.
8:15:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG reminded the committee that he had
asked for a legal opinion regarding a memorandum - referenced
during the last hearing on HB 179 - from Legislative Legal and
Research Services, dated January 29, 2005, [included in the
committee packet]. [That opinion was noted at the time to be in
conflict with that of the attorney general.] He drew attention
to the response to his request, made via memorandum dated April
2, 2007, from Dan Wayne, Legal Council, Legislative Legal and
Research Services, in which Mr. Wayne concurs with the Attorney
General's opinion. He paraphrased an excerpt of the AG's
opinion, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
These statement [sic] and the analysis that follows
them in the LAA memorandum are not consistent with the
Alaska Supreme Court's repeated rulings that an
employee's rights under the retirement systems vest --
i.e., are "accrued" -- at the time the employee first
enrolls in the system, and that those accrued rights
include not only the amount of and eligibility
requirements for benefits, but also "the practical
effect of the whole complex of provisions" of the
systems.
8:17:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL remarked, "There is section in here that
talks about the strong argument that the 5 percent may not be
considered an accrued benefit. So, I think that there is room
for argument."
8:18:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES, in response to being asked if he would
consider withdrawing his amendment so that Representative Doll
could offer an amendment, stated:
The concern that I have is the legal part of it. I
understand where Representative Kelly is going, and I
understand the arguments that he's making, in terms of
everybody having skin in the game, but part of the
concern that we have is: when there were surpluses in
the account, what happened at that point in time is
they reduced the amount that the employers paid; they
never did reduce the amount the employee paid. So,
now, when there's a shortfall, we're trying to get the
employees to kick in, whereas if that reduction hadn't
been made, we maybe wouldn't have been in quite as bad
a shape as we are. So, ... this is one of those ones
where you're kind of caught in the middle. I don't
like the 5 percent, but if we are going to put the 5
percent in, I think it needs to be taken care of
properly. So, it appears to me from the discussions
that I've had with the other members sitting around
the table that they are not going to pass this
amendment that I've made; that they're more in favor
of reducing the 5 percent. So, we can either vote it
up or vote it down.
8:19:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL recommended that Representative Doll
offer her amendment as an amendment to Amendment 1, rather than
having Representative Roses withdraw his amendment.
CHAIR LYNN concurred and suggested that it be conceptual.
8:19:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL moved to adopt [Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 1], which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Page 2, lines 3-6
Delete all language
[(E) BEGINNING WITH THE PAYROLL FOR THE FIRST PAY
PERIOD IN JULY 2007, A MEMBER SHALL CONTRIBUTE TO THE
PLAN, IN ADDITION TO THE AMOUNT CALCULATED IN (A) OF
THIS SECTION, AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO FIVE PERCENT OF THE
MEMBER'S BASE SALARY]
Page 17, lines 17-19
Delete all language
[(E) BEGINNING WITH THE PAYROLL FOR THE FIRST PAY
PERIOD IN JULY 2007, A MEMBER SHALL CONTRIBUTE TO THE
PLAN, IN ADDITION TO THE AMOUNT CALCULATED IN (A) OF
THIS SECTION, AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO FIVE PERCENT OF THE
MEMBER'S BASE SALARY]
8:21:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected. He explained as follows:
This pushes hard against the contribution rate
employees need to bring in. But the tension here is
you have a 3 to 5 percent, before or after tax -
however you want to count it - contribution level
that's going to go up, compared to a chunk that the
state's going to pick up that is in the double digits
and beyond, as far as the overall payment or not only
the existing system, but the debt retirement. So, the
cost borne by both the employers and the state is not
even close to 5 percent; it's not close to 10 percent;
it's not close to 50 percent; it gets way, way up
there.
... And then, the needle keeps tipping over to the
point where the people of Alaska, through their taxes
-- now the benefit to Alaskans is: we get oil taxes,
so we're not digging it out of people's back pockets
very much. But I could conceive of a day where the
bill goes to the back pockets of the people of Alaska
who are not in state employment. Be that as it may,
regardless of where the money comes from, the fact is
it's the people of Alaska that pick up that, not only
in the double digits, but the double digits that are
very high. ... And honestly, [all] I know is that
it's high; I honestly don't know where you fix that
number; I just know it's way up there.
So, asking employees to step up to the plate: I like
the amendment, because it looks past the bargaining
deadlines that we have now. I like that part, because
I don't think this retroactive thing is -- the case
was made very well that it could be very retroactive.
And I like the idea of maybe incrementally going into
it. Even though that small incremental change
becomes, probably, less significant in the overall
bill, it's ... a part of saying we're going to feel
some responsibility for it. My guess is you would
probably bargain for higher wages, so I don't know
that the cost really goes to the employee anyway.
Eventually, I think the state's going to pick it up.
But it's a recognition that we all have to kind of
step up to it. So, just taking it out, I think, is
not the best policy in my view. And so, I'm going to
vote against it. I like the idea that it asks people
to come to the table. That's painful, but not any
less painful than everybody else who has to come kind
of take care of this bill. So, I'm going to speak
against the amendment to the amendment.
8:24:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, in response to Representative Gruenberg,
explained his previous mention of "may be" and "may not be" was
meant to illustrate that he thinks other opinions outside that
of Mr. Wayne may be correct.
8:25:06 AM
CHAIR LYNN said using "may" in legislation is ambiguous.
8:25:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG provided clarification regarding the
aforementioned letter from Mr. Wayne. He offered his
understanding that [Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1] would
replace the entire Amendment 1, and would be a "flat out
deletion of the 5 percent," which would mean that employees
would be contributing no more than they currently contribute.
8:28:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL warned, "I think we're running into a lot of
trouble if we do not do this. ... Even trying to phase it in, I
think we'd be running into a great deal of trouble." She said a
great contributor to the unfunded liability is related to health
care cost, and she said she would like the legislature to
confront that issue.
8:29:09 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Johansen, Johnson,
Gruenberg, Doll, Roses, and Lynn voted in favor of Amendment 1
to Amendment 1. Representative Coghill voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 was adopted by a vote of
6-1.
8:30:18 AM
CHAIR LYNN asked if there was any further discussion on
Amendment 1, as amended.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected to Amendment 1, as amended.
8:30:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON opined that the state's retirement system
is a crushing burden and employees need to share [in that
burden]. He stated his primary concern is regarding
constitutionality, and he said he doesn't want to see a long
legal battle. He said he supports the concept [of Amendment 1,
as amended], but is not prepared at this point to "go against
the constitution."
8:32:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that the House State
Affairs Standing Committee has changed over the last few years.
He explained that an increasing number of bills proposed have
legal implications. Not all those bills can go before House
Judiciary Standing Committee, thus they are being heard by the
House State Affairs Standing Committee. He urged members to be
willing to look at legal issues, as well [as policy issues].
8:33:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL remarked that every bill addressed in
almost every committee has a legal implication. He said issues
of constitutionality properly reside within both the House
Judiciary Standing Committee and House State Affairs Standing
Committee. He said he is sorry the committee voted - through
its adoption of Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 - to take
out the language proposed by Representative Roses, thus
shrinking from bringing employees to the table at a crucial time
of discussion. He concluded that he thinks the committee has
removed the question of constitutionality.
8:36:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES said there has been considerable discussion
regarding the issue of 5 percent. Many people he spoke with
expressed willingness to support the 5 percent, provided the
bill would be heard in the House Judiciary Standing Committee;
however, since it was not scheduled for that committee, they
felt the 5 percent should be removed. He stated that he
understands both sides of the issue. He said he doesn't
disagree with Representative Kelly regarding moving forward, and
that when people were given benefits years ago, no one had a way
of predicting the increased costs. He stated, "With that being
said, I supported the amendment to the amendment, and I'm going
to support this amendment, as is."
8:38:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL [maintained his objection to Amendment 1,
as amended.]
8:38:36 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Johnson, Gruenberg,
Doll, Roses, Johansen, and Lynn voted in favor of Amendment 1,
as amended. Representative Coghill voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 1, as amended, was adopted by a vote of 6-
1.
8:39:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES noted that there was another amendment in
the committee packet that would have been necessary, had
Amendment 1 been adopted, unamended; however, it would not be
offered now.
8:40:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to report HB 179, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB
179(STA) was reported out of the House State Affairs Standing
Committee.
The committee took an at-ease from 8:40:47 AM to 8:41:59 AM.
HB 210-QUALIFICATIONS OF THE ADJUTANT GENERAL
8:42:04 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the next order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 210, "An Act relating to the appointment and
qualifications of the adjutant general."
8:42:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NANCY DAHLSTROM, Alaska State Legislature,
presented HB 210 as prime sponsor. She paraphrased the sponsor
statement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
House Bill 210, "An act relating to the appointment
and qualifications of the adjutant general," is before
us to bring attention to the importance of guard duty
in relation to its leadership.
In recent years, the Alaska National Guard has
undergone major changes. It has seen organizational
restructure, increased deployment responsibility and
additional missions at home. With the amplified demand
for the Alaska National Guard, it is imperative for
our state's adjutant general be adequately qualified.
House Bill 210's intent is to positively impact troop
morale by appointing leaders who have shared similar
experiences and walked in their shoes. Knowing their
leader has been down a similar path will create a
deeper respect within the troops.
The National Guard Bureau in Washington, D.C. is
considering an increase in rank for the bureau chief,
from three-star to four-star. Increasing the rank from
major general to lieutenant general will give the
Alaska National Guard a jump start on this initiative
and make our adjutant general more qualified and
better received when working with issues back in
Washington, D.C. An increase in rank will not impact
the state budget and will not increase the adjutant
general's salary as a state employee.
It is important to note this legislation does not
limit the power of the Governor to appoint a viable
candidate as Adjutant General/Commissioner of the
Department of Military and Veterans Affairs. This
legislation is supported by the Administration and I
ask for your favorable consideration.
CHAIR LYNN stated, "It's my understanding that potentially a
National Guard general could be advanced to the Joint Armed
Services Committee in [Washington], D.C."
8:45:12 AM
McHUGH PIERRE, Director of Communications, Office of the
Commissioner/Adjutant General, Department of Military & Veterans
Affairs, confirmed that Lieutenant General Blum (ph) is "looking
at the possibility of staying on," and he is being considered
for promotion from three-star to four-star rank.
8:45:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked what the differences are between
the requirements of a lieutenant [general] versus a major
general.
MR. PIERRE replied that [the lieutenant general] holds a higher
level of respect, with more troops serving underneath him/her.
He added:
However, that wouldn't change very much in our
situation. Simply, it would just allow the level of
interaction on the federal, on the national, side of
the house to increase, and that way they would have
more pull in D.C.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL summarized as follows:
The intent, then, is to try to ratchet up the level of
qualification. I see you have five-years' experience,
and so the intention here is to ratchet up the level
of experience so that ... getting this higher grade,
this general grade officer, ... not only would be
recognized as an appointed position, but also as an
earned position, I take it.
8:47:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM said that's absolutely correct.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL directed attention to page 1, line 5, of
the bill, and noted that the language read, "the governor may".
He reminded Representative Dahlstrom of Chair Lynn's remarks
[during the hearing on HB 179] regarding the ambiguity of using
the word "may." He questioned whether the sponsor may want to
use a stronger directive, such as by using the word, "shall."
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM responded that that issue has been
discussed between the Department of Military & Veterans Affairs
and the administration, thus she deferred the question to Mr.
Pierre.
MR. PIERRE stated that the department wants to keep the power of
governor intact, which he said is not only important from the
standpoint of the governor, but also in finding a viable
candidate. He explained that if there are no viable candidates,
the department doesn't want to set limitations that would
"hinder the growth of the organization." He said the department
believes that with the increasing demands on the National Guard,
there must be a strong leadership to guide the organization and
help it grow.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said although the verbiage in the bill
gives direction, the use of the word "may" is not strong. The
word "shall" is too strong, he said; therefore, he questioned
whether the word "should" could be a possibility.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM said she does not know about the
legality of using the word "should."
CHAIR LYNN noted that if the governor does not do what he/she
"should" do, than he/she is doing something that should not be
done, which he said would not make him very comfortable if he
were governor.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL explained that he has discovered in the
past that the common sense use of a word sometimes differs from
its legal definition. He said his concern over the semantics is
not such that he wants to slow down bill. He said he thinks the
bill gives some direction that the legislature would "prefer
qualifications at the five-level mark ... in military service."
On the other hand, he indicated that he does not want to
disallow the possibility of finding someone in the Department of
Homeland Security who didn't necessarily have the "heavy
military experience."
8:50:41 AM
MR. PIERRE clarified that a person must be a federally
recognized general officer in order to "have this position."
Furthermore, the increase in rank would only happen if approved
on "the federal side of the House."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL remarked, "Well then, those are enough
'shoulds' for me."
8:51:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL said the bill uses "may" more than once, and
she interpreted that to mean that "it could happen without this
bill."
MR. PIERRE confirmed:
It has happened without the bill. Our current
adjutant general, General Campbell, is an Alaskan.
He's a long time member of the Alaska National Guard -
25 years - so, certainly this happened. It has not
happened in the past, and the organization has
suffered because of that, according to members of the
organization. And the Alaska National Guard Officers'
Association feels very strongly that this should be in
statute, not directing, but suggesting. And the fact
that it's suggesting on statute has enough implication
that the future governor will look at that and
consider his or her appointment with that much more
complication or ... weight behind it.
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL asked for further clarification. She noted,
"Because the governor will make the appointment, but you said it
also has to be ... mandated or okayed on a federal level, as
well."
MR. PIERRE explained:
Well, you must be a federally recognized general
officer, so you must have achieved rank that is
sufficient to be promoted to Brigadier General, within
the military.
8:53:26 AM
MR. PIERRE, in response to a request from Representative Roses,
stated for the record that major general is a "two-star" and a
lieutenant general is a "three-star."
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES opined that if there is any state in the
Union where the adjutant general deserves to be considered for a
higher rank, it ought to be the state of Alaska. He explained
that the level of engagement that the National Guard has in
Alaska far exceeds any other state. He said many of the
generals he has met have spoken to the fact that Alaska "sets
the standard on the way the [National] Guard and the active
military should engage." He mentioned, by way of example, the
disaster on the H.M.S. Tireless, emphasizing the expediency with
which the National Guard took over the responsibility of the
otherwise engaged Coast Guard. He stated his support of HB 210.
8:56:03 AM
MR. PIERRE, in response to a question from Representative Doll,
clarified that Alaska's current adjutant general is not a
lieutenant general. According to federal law and Alaska State
Statute, the adjutant general can only be a two-star general,
which Mr. Pierre reviewed is a major general.
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL noted that the language, [on page 1, line
8], specifies that the adjutant general "may not exceed
lieutenant [MAJOR] general." She asked what the next rank up
would be.
MR. PIERRE answered, "General." He continued:
Due to federal requirements ..., the National Guard
bureau chief is a rank above the adjutant generals.
Therefore, if the National Guard bureau chief is to be
a four-star general, the adjutant generals would be a
three-star general.
8:56:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM offered a means by which the committee
could memorize the rank of generals from bottom to top: "be my
little general." Using the first letter of each word, "b"
stands for brigadier general, "m" stands for major general, "l"
stands for lieutenant general, and "g" stands for the top
ranking general.
8:57:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said adding an additional star on
Alaska's adjutant generals will help maintain their
independence. He discussed other legislation.
CHAIR LYNN expressed appreciation of the Alaska National Guard.
9:01:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM, in response to a question from
Representative Coghill, said she does not believe there is a
need for an effective date on the bill.
9:01:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES moved to report HB 210 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HB 210 was reported out of the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
The committee took an at-ease from 9:02:07 AM to 9:03:42 and
again from 9:03:47 AM to 9:04:22.
9:04:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES noted that the association of the adjutant
generals would be meeting this June in Anchorage.
HJR 7-CONST AM: GENDER-NEUTRAL REFERENCES
9:05:34 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the next order of business was HOUSE
JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 7, Proposing amendments to the Constitution
of the State of Alaska to avoid the use of personal pronouns and
similar references that denote masculine or feminine gender in
that document.
9:05:51 AM
SANDRA WILSON, Intern to Representative Carl Gatto, Alaska State
Legislature, introduced HJR 7 on behalf of Representative Gatto,
prime sponsor. She paraphrased the sponsor statement, which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
HJR 7 removes all masculine or feminine terms from the
Constitution of the State of Alaska. This resolution
deletes the terms "his," "him," and "himself" and
replaces them with terms as "oneself," "Governor,"
"Governor-elect," "Lieutenant Governor," "Legislator,"
"members," "executive," "justice or judge," "voter,"
"person's," "auditor," and "accused." Other changes
that occur make the sentences grammatically correct.
Some of our oldest and youngest states in the union
such as New York and Hawaii have amended their
constitutions to reflect gender neutrality. The
framers of our constitution went to great lengths in
the construction of the Constitution to recognize
gender equality and it is in that spirit and as a
continuation of their leadership that we seek to
modify our constitution in recognition of the progress
in our society and culture.
This resolution is before us now because it is time
for us to recognize a significant moment in Alaska
history, a time when we elected our first female
Governor. The administration fully supports this
effort.
I ask for your support.
9:07:16 AM
CHAIR LYNN noted that there is also an effort being made by some
to change the Holy Bible to gender neutral language. He pointed
out, "'Man' is generic for 'mankind' or even 'humankind.'" He
asked Ms. Wilson if the resolution is addressing a problem with
language or the way the language is interpreted.
9:07:52 AM
MS. WILSON said the sponsor wants to give significance to having
a female governor, because currently everything reads "he" or
"himself" or "his."
CHAIR LYNN concluded that it is just the pronouns that are being
changed.
9:08:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES said he understands the intent of the
[resolution] and will not vote against it, even though he sees
it as unnecessary. He explained that back when he was in high
school, "he" meant either gender. Most language, including the
state constitution and Masons Rules, for example, follows
Standard English. He said, "I don't think when this language
was written it ever, in any way, shape, or form excluded females
from having those positions."
9:10:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said he is okay with saying "all mankind,"
but he thinks of this as a matter of courtesy. He said he
thinks those representatives who are female would prefer the
proposed language, and he pointed out that it does no harm.
9:11:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL said she thinks the resolution is wonderful
and timely.
9:11:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he strongly supports the
resolution. He recollected that somewhere - either in the
constitution or in statute - the lieutenant governor is still
referred to as the secretary of state. He indicated that that
issue may have been "cleaned up" but he is just mentioning it.
He stated that he would like to cosponsor HJR 7.
9:12:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he would be asking for a legal
opinion regarding HJR 7 and revision of the constitution to find
possible ramifications. He said he would prefer that the
resolution stay in the House State Affairs Standing Committee
until that information has been reviewed; however, he noted that
he sits on the House Judiciary Standing Committee, which is the
next committee of referral for HJR 7. He emphasized how many
different articles of the Constitution of the State of Alaska
this proposed legislation would affect.
9:14:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said his staff just informed him that
"secretary of state" is found in the proposed resolution on page
2, line 16, and on page 5, line 26. He indicated that there had
been a prior constitutional amendment a number of years ago, but
those two references were overlooked. He said he would like to
offer an amendment to address this issue.
9:15:52 AM
HEATH HILYARD, Staff to Representative Gatto, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Gatto, prime sponsor of
HJR 7, informed Representative Gruenberg that according to
Legislative Legal and Research Services, it is not allowable to
address "two separate subject areas" in one constitutional
amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would hold off on addressing
the matter.
CHAIR LYNN said it is a subject that needs to be addressed.
9:17:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL asked if the committee would like a motion
on the resolution.
9:17:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he would like to hold the resolution
in order to get answers to the legal questions.
9:17:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN said he likes the thought behind the
bill. He stated that he has three daughters, and his youngest
is learning how to read and questions the slant toward the male
gender in literature. He said he thinks moving to gender
neutral references is the right thing to do; however, he said he
would like hold the bill in committee for one more hearing, out
of respect for Representative Coghill's wishes.
9:18:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES concurred.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG concurred.
9:18:45 AM
CHAIR LYNN recognized that the year is 2007, but he said it is
possible to go overboard in an attempt to be politically
correct. He said it's a balancing act. He stated, "If this is
written correctly where we don't get silly with it, where we
just refer to officers rather than all these pronouns, I
probably won't have that large a problem with it."
9:19:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL indicated that she would [not make a motion
today].
9:19:49 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that HJR 7 was heard and held.
HB 45-STATE VETERANS' CEMETERY & FUND
9:20:08 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the last order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 45, "An Act authorizing the Department of Military and
Veterans' Affairs to establish and maintain Alaska veterans'
cemeteries; and establishing the Alaska veterans' cemetery fund
in the general fund." [Before the committee was CSHB 45(MLV).]
9:20:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID GUTTENBERG, Alaska State Legislature,
introduced HB 45 as joint prime sponsor. He related that Alaska
is no longer eligible for national cemeteries for veterans - the
two that exist are in Sitka and Fort Rich - but there are
programs the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs ("the VA") has
for establishing state cemeteries. He told the committee that
his constituents have been approaching him to request a
veterans' burial site closer to home than the one in Anchorage.
He said HB 45 would allow the state to apply to the VA for a
grant for state cemeteries in eligible communities. The VA
would be responsible for the criteria related to the cemeteries.
9:21:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG, in response to a question from
Representative Gruenberg, confirmed that he had introduced
legislation regarding the same issue last year, but it "died in
the other body."
9:22:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES said he was satisfied by the lengthy and
complete bill hearing process that took place in the House
Special Committee on Military and Veterans' Affairs on HB 45;
therefore, he stated his support of HB 45.
9:22:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES moved to report CSHB 45(MLV) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 45(MLV) was
reported out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
9:23:59 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|