02/21/2008 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB54 | |
| HB261 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 54 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 261 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 318 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 21, 2008
8:11 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
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 54
"An Act relating to construction of a legislative hall; and
repealing provisions relating to relocating the capital, the
legislature, or any of the present functions of state
government."
- HEARD AND HELD
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 261
"An Act establishing a program of public funding for the
financing of election campaigns of candidates for state elected
offices, to be known as the Clean Elections Act."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 318
"An Act relating to the location of the convening of the
legislature in a special session; and providing for an effective
date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 54
SHORT TITLE: CONSTRUCTION OF LEGISLATIVE HALL
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) NEUMAN
01/16/07 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/5/07
01/16/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/07 (H) STA, FIN
02/21/08 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 261
SHORT TITLE: CLEAN ELECTIONS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) LEDOUX
05/15/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/15/07 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
01/25/08 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED
01/25/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/25/08 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
02/21/08 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE MARK NEUMAN
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 54 as prime sponsor.
REX SHATTUCK, Staff
Representative Mark Neumann
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Reviewed the changes made to HB 54 in
Version E.
ROSEMARY HAGEVIG, Vice Chair
Alaska Committee
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the Alaska Committee
during the hearing on HB 54.
CLARK GRUENING, Lobbyist
City & Borough of Juneau (CBJ)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered a question during the hearing on
HB 54.
ALBERT JUDSON
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of himself in
opposition to HB 54.
REPRESENTATIVE GABRIELLE LeDOUX
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered a brief introduction commencing the
hearing on SSHB 261.
SUZANNE HANCOCK, Staff
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SSHB 261 on behalf of
Representative LeDoux, prime sponsor.
TIM JUNE, Chair
Alaskans for Clean Elections
Haines, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on SSHB 261.
REPRESENTATIVE BERTA GARDNER
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on SSHB 261 as
co-sponsor.
ACTION NARRATIVE
VICE CHAIR ROSES called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:11:12 AM. Representatives
Coghill, Johansen, Johnson, Doll, and Roses were present at the
call to order. Representatives Gruenberg and Lynn arrived as
the meeting was in progress.
8:11:31 AM
HB 54-CONSTRUCTION OF LEGISLATIVE HALL
8:12:08 AM
VICE CHAIR ROSES announced that the first order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 54, "An Act relating to construction of a
legislative hall; and repealing provisions relating to
relocating the capital, the legislature, or any of the present
functions of state government."
8:12:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN moved to adopt the committee substitute
(CS) for HB 54, Version 25-LS0284\E, Cook, 2/20/08, as a work
draft. [No objection was stated and Version E was treated as
before the committee.]
8:12:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MARK NEUMAN, Alaska State Legislature, presented
HB 54 as prime sponsor. He acknowledged [that other bills have
brought about] discussion as to how to give the public greater
access to its legislature, but he said HB 54 proposes to do so
in a different manner. He explained that the proposed
legislature would allow communities to bid on the construction
of a legislative hall. Representative Neuman said he had this
idea tested by looking for 1,000 acres in the Matanuska-Susitna
Borough that could be provided to a real estate developer. He
said he actually found a development group that he determined
was interested in building a legislative hall in exchange for
the property and development rights to it. The developer could
develop enough infrastructure around the legislative hall to
recoup the money spent on the legislative hall. The developer
would then lease that legislative hall back to the legislature
for $1 a year.
8:15:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN said the proposed bill would allow
virtually any community in the state to come up with a proposal,
which he said "may be what Juneau needs to prove that this
should be the home for a legislature." He noted that Juneau has
a building design that has already been proposed. The passage
of HB 54 does not propose to move the legislature, but to allow
other communities throughout the state to have the opportunity
to house the legislature.
8:16:43 AM
REX SHATTUCK, Staff, Representative Mark Neumann, Alaska State
Legislature, reviewed the changes made to HB 54 in Version E.
He explained that the reason for deleting all of Section 1 was
that the language was full of rhetoric and of no great value to
the content of the bill. Some of the numbers were deleted, he
explained, because they seemed too arbitrary. The requirement
that any borough or unified municipality must have at least
30,000 residents to be allowed to make a proposal was dropped in
recognition that there could be entities other than
municipalities or boroughs - for example, land owned by a Native
corporation.
8:20:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN mentioned "page 1, starting on line 5, and
over into page 3," then spoke of changing the word "must" to
"may" on page 3, lines 3 and 4. He credited the former
Representative Rokeberg for first bringing forth this
legislation. He indicated that language referring to the ferry
system was in deference to the concerns of Representatives Doll
and Johansen.
8:22:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked for the definition of "base
payments" - a term used on page 3, line 26.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN replied:
The intent of this is a developer who builds a
legislative hall would not charge the legislature in
excess of $1 per year for use of that building.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked about other charges, such as
service, utility, and taxes.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN indicated that that concern has already
been addressed in the fiscal note, which shows that the costs
would be covered for a wide range of expenses.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked why the sponsor did not specify
that the total charge could not be more than a certain amount a
year. He explained, "Because a sharp lawyer ... will advise the
client to term them anything that can get around this so that
they can charge more."
MR. SHATTUCK directed attention to the language on page 3, lines
[27-31], which directs the Alaska Legislative Council to
consider whether the proposed site has basic utility services,
adequate airport access, and adequate access by road, air, or
ferry. He said there was no intent to exclude any
possibilities, and he said the word "total" could work.
8:25:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN directed attention to page 1, line 9,
which shows a deadline for the Alaska Legislative Council of
December 15, 2008. He asked, "Has [legislative] council worked
on any of this, and is that an emphasis deadline?"
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN replied that if the members of the Alaska
Legislative Council feel they need longer, the dates can be
changed fairly easily.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN directed attention to page 2, lines 5-7,
which read:
(1) a private office for each legislator and that
legislator's staff, with the offices for the Speaker
of the House of Representatives and the President of
the Senate to be larger than other legislator's
offices;
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN noted, as a practical issue, that the
staff of the House and Senate Finance Committees is twice as
large as that of a minority member, yet the bill language would
have everyone's office the same size except that noted. He
said, "I'm sure there must be some flexibility in addressing the
needs of the state."
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN replied that that's why he had talked
about replacing the word "must" with "may" on page 2, lines 3
and 4. He said, "Those are nothing more than a basic
guideline."
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN directed attention to page 2, line 17,
which would require a courtroom in the legislative hall. He
questioned the need for a courtroom in the [legislative hall].
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN responded that the bill language was
pulled from Representative Rokeberg's original bill language.
He proffered, "It's easier to provide the maximum amount of
things that may be in a building and then start deleting and
taking them out instead of adding things on."
8:27:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said the proposed requirement for a
courtroom would require input from the court system, which might
have an effect on how the bill moves. He said he is not aware
of other state capitols that have supreme court chambers within
them.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN expressed his willingness to remove that
language.
8:29:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL asked why Representative Neuman is proposing
to repeal the Fiscally Responsible Alaskans Needing Knowledge
(FRANK) Initiative of 1994.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN said he thinks the FRANK Initiative is a
double-edged sword. He stated:
The FRANK Initiative asks to provide costs to cover
the expenses to Juneau for its social and economical
losses to Juneau. What are the social and economic
losses to Mat-Su or Kenai or Fairbanks or Anchorage?
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN deferred to Mr. Shattuck for further
comment.
8:30:50 AM
MR. SHATTUCK referred to the statutes related to the FRANK
Initiative, AS 44.06.050-060, which read as follows:
Sec. 44.06.050. Purpose of AS 44.06.050 - 44.06.060.
The purpose of AS 44.06.050 - 44.06.060 is to
guarantee to the people their right to know and to
approve in advance all costs of relocating the capital
or the legislature; to insure that the people will
have an opportunity to make an informed and objective
decision on relocating the capital or the legislature
with all pertinent data concerning the costs to the
state; and to insure that the costs of relocating the
capital or the legislature will not be incurred by the
state without the approval of the electorate.
MR. SHATTUCK indicated that the FRANK Initiative exists to
reveal costs to the public, but since the bill would provide a
legislative hall at the minimal cost of $1, the public may have
"a higher degree of confidence," and thus the FRANK initiative
"may not be the higher need that's strongly stated." He also
indicated that there may be some legal issues related to
combining a bid process with the FRANK Initiative.
8:33:25 AM
MR. SHATTUCK, in response to Representative Gruenberg, said he
does not have the aforementioned feedback from Legislative Legal
and Research Services in writing.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked that the sponsor make copies of
any legal opinions he receives available to the committee.
8:34:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN directed attention to language within
the sentence on page 3, beginning on [line 20], which read:
On completion of the specifications, the Alaska
Legislative Council shall solicit proposals for
construction of the legislative hall to be operated,
maintained, repaired, and managed by the legislative
council for use by the legislature as the location for
regular and special sessions and for interim work.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN said he knows he is no attorney, but
stated his assumption that "the" means "the one and only." He
asked if the proposed language would limit legislative sessions
only to the location [of the winning bid].
8:34:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN told Representative Johansen that he could
"read into it what you want to see." He added, "I guess it's
always at the will of the governor to call the location, but
it's the intent of this bill to allow the legislative council to
develop a plan for the legislature to meet in a legislative
hall."
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN said he thinks the language of the bill
speaks for itself; it specifies that the legislative hall would
be the - emphasis on "the" - location for regular and special
sessions and for interim work. He explained, "I'm just trying
to comport those two ideas of having special sessions on the
road, which seems like a pretty popular idea these days, and
limiting it to one building in particular."
8:35:44 AM
MR. SHATTUCK responded that the intent was never to be that
restrictive.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN reiterated his understanding that the
governor chooses the location of a special session.
8:36:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG concluded that according to the bill
language, if Juneau were to win the bid, all legislative regular
and special sessions and interim committee hearings would have
to take place in Juneau.
8:36:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN said that is true; however, he reiterated
that the governor ultimately chooses the location for a special
session.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked, "So, there might be a conflict
between this and the governor's inherent powers?"
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN said he is not saying that there is a
conflict "with this or anything."
8:37:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN directed attention to page 4, lines [5-
8], which read as follows:
SELECTION OF A PROPOSAL. The Alaska Legislative
Council shall review all proposals, conduct
inspection, and select a proposal or reject all
proposals by August 29, 2009. If a proposal is
selected, the legislative council shall enter into
contracts, leases, and other agreements necessary to
carry out the terms of the proposal.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN surmised that the bill proposes to
delegate all the power to decide which proposal to choose to one
committee, which he said he finds troubling, because he said
this is an extremely important issue. He asked if it is the
bill sponsor's intent to focus the power to one committee.
8:38:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN responded that he thinks the proposal
could be brought before the legislature for acceptance, but
after that, he said, the Alaska Legislative Council should "take
it from there."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that it is a concern of the
minority members that the Alaska Legislative Council is one of
only two committees that does not provide for proportional
representation; by statute, there is only one minority member
serving on that council.
8:40:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN asked how the bill, if passed, would
influence the "Block 39" project in Anchorage. In response to a
request for clarification, he offered his understanding that the
Alaska Legislative Council is working toward some sort of
facility in Anchorage and "there's quite a bit of money being
tossed around."
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN offered his understand that the area in
question is being considered for a judicial building, but
perhaps Anchorage would want to come up with a proposal to add
to that.
8:41:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL confirmed that the Block 39 plan would
house the judicial branch, but would also replace the offices
currently being used by the Anchorage legislators. Furthermore,
it would include a parking garage. He commented on the doubling
of costs and "sticker shock."
MR. SHATTUCK said it is too early in the process to understand
how [Block 39] and [any possible legislative hall in Anchorage]
would interact.
8:42:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN said Representative Coghill brought up
good point that the cost of [the building in Block 39] has
doubled. He said HB 54 insulates the legislature from that sort
of inflation, through its proposed cost of $1 a year.
8:43:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if the sponsor has checked with
any municipalities or private parties to find out if anyone
would be willing to make a bid, should HB 54 pass.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN answered yes. He directed attention to a
feasibility review provided by the Matanuska-Susitna Borough
[available in the committee packet]. He offered further
details. He stated that not only would he not have proposed
this legislation if he thought it was a "pie in the sky" idea,
he went one step further and found a developer interested in the
project. In response to Representative Gruenberg, he said he
started with Mat-Su borough and asked his own community what
they had to offer. He stated that what the Mat-Su Borough did
is absolutely no different from what can be done in other
communities.
8:46:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL said the sponsor has testified that this
proposal is an invitation to all communities to participate in
the bidding process, including Juneau; however, in his sponsor
statement, he wrote that the bill is actually about access and
that Juneau is difficult to access. She remarked that she
wonders whether the bill is really an invitation for others or
whether it is "an argument for a particular builder."
8:47:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN, in response to Representative Doll,
reiterated the intent of bill. He indicated that his sponsor
statement addresses the lack of access in Juneau, because he
hears that concern expressed by his constituents and has
experienced "lack of access to Juneau" personally. He remarked
that even the ferry system has, at times, been incapacitated by
high winds.
8:49:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON stated that the concept of building in
exchange for property is not a new one. He recalled the time
when there was discussion regarding moving the capital to
Willow, Alaska, and at that time, an individual came forward
with a proposal to "do an exchange acre for acre." He said,
"That was never on the [FRANK] Initiative that we could have
done it for free back in the day when it was trying to go to
Willow."
8:50:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN said he does not think his constituency
wants the capital in Ketchikan. He noted that when the ferry
system was pulled out of service, the winds in the Lynn Canal
had reached 100 knots. He said out of the numerous bills
introduced over the years related to the moving of the
legislature and/or capital, many of them have had limiting
factors regarding population or the area that was required for
the construction of a capital or legislative hall. He said he
does not think the City & Borough of Juneau is being proactive
enough in providing adequate facilities. He asked the sponsor,
"Are those type of limiting factors in here?"
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN said a limiting factor of $30,000 was
removed from Version E. He directed attention a sentence on
page 4, beginning on line 8, which read:
If the proposal selected includes a site wholly or
partially on state land, the legislative council shall
take all action necessary to arrange for the transfer
of the land to the municipality at no cost, including
the introduction of legislation to accomplish that
purpose.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN told Representative Johansen that there
are a lot of areas in his district and in other places around
the state where development is possible, and the bill provides
an opportunity to make state land useful.
8:55:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN, in response to Representative Lynn, who
had just arrived, reviewed the previous remarks regarding the
FRANK Initiative.
8:58:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said it appears that the $1 dollar per
year proposed on page 3 would only involve operating expenses,
but he said he does not see anything in the bill that specifies
that the [legislative hall and the cost of constructing it]
"must be totally borne by someone other than the legislature."
He said "base payments by the legislature in excess of $1 per
year" sounds like operating expenses.
MR. SHATTUCK responded that "the proposal may not require a base
payment." He explained that the intent behind the base payment
was targeted at the cost of building the legislative hall. He
commented that the operating costs are reflected in the newly
acquired fiscal note and the sponsor is "exploring the actual
operating costs." He said the intent is that the legislature
would not pay for "the building of the new legislative hall."
9:00:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN, in response to a question from
Representative Gruenberg related to the sentence on page 3,
beginning on line 25, and the sentence on page 4, beginning on
line 8 [text for both provided previously], said his intent is
that the legislature would lease the legislative hall back from
either a developer or community for $1 a year, and if the
proposal selected includes a site that is on state land, he said
"we'll try to do all we can." He continued:
I think [the] legislative council will be required to
get that land to the community, to help develop that
community and expand the growth in that community for
whatever reason, whether it's Juneau, Anchorage,
Fairbanks, Kenai, wherever the case may be. And yeah,
the community would own that land; ... and they would
lease ... the building and the complex and the land
and the parking lot and everything involved here for a
buck a year back to the legislature.
9:03:09 AM
ROSEMARY HAGEVIG, Vice Chair, Alaska Committee, testified on
behalf of the Alaska Committee. She said the Alaska Committee
was formed in 1994 as a nonprofit group comprised of volunteers
in Juneau, and the group's main purpose is to improve access and
address facility issues with respect to making Juneau a better
capital city.
MS. HAGEVIG, regarding access issues, reminded everyone that the
Alaska Committee, in conjunction with the City & Borough of
Juneau, has taken a lot of initiative to improve access for the
people of Alaska to their state capital. She listed, for
example, the following: the Alaska Committee's partnership with
KTOO television in providing Gavel to Gavel; Alaska Airlines'
work with the Alaska Committee to improve the constituent
airfare process and its past selection of the Juneau
International Airport as the primary airport for state-of-the-
art landing facilities that are now incorporated in the rest of
the country and much of the world; the hard work of volunteers
to make surface connectivity to the rest of the state a reality
by expanding the Lynn Canal Highway, a process that is close to
getting the necessary permits; and an Internet streaming project
and exploration of the possibility of having fixed cameras in
the committee rooms - both with the help of KTOO.
MS. HAGEVIG said it seems that the focus of this issue has
shifted from access to facilities, and the Alaska Committee is
cognizant of the fact that the legislature does need better
facilities and is willing to work on that issue. Responding to
prior testimony that CBJ had not done enough, she pointed out
that both the Terry Miller building and the Masonic Temple were
donations, the latter most recently given, and she indicated
that those buildings, in addition to the capitol, are viewed as
a complex that will be "a good working facility to conduct the
people's business." That said, Ms. Hagevig said the Alaska
Committee knows that the capitol building has some shortcomings,
including: limited seating in the galleries and [lack of
sufficient] parking. She stated, "We stand ready to work with
the legislature to address those shortcomings."
9:08:00 AM
MS. HAGEVIG stated, "Representative Neuman has proposed to deal
with this by suggesting that the capital should be located in a
different part of the state and making it more accessible to the
people in ... the rest of the state." She said the Alaska
Committee does not disagree that the people of Alaska should
have access to their government, but she emphasized that the
Alaska Committee has made important strides in making that a
reality. She said improving the footprint of the historic
capitol building is certainly something that the Alaska
Committee would advocate. She stated:
Should the capitol move away from Southeast Alaska,
this will have a socio-economic impact on this entire
region, not just the community of Juneau. And I guess
I would compare that to the threat that the railbelt
communities experienced when the [Base Realignment and
Closure] (BRAC) Commission was threatening to close
down military bases. ... Southeast Alaska ...
actively supported all of the work that went into
maintaining those military bases. So, it's not just
that we are looking out for our own interest, but that
we really do relate to what is important to the rest
of the state.
9:09:43 AM
MS. HAGEVIG referred to the bill title, which read as follows:
"An Act relating to construction of a legislative
hall; and repealing provisions relating to relocating
the capital, the legislature, or any of the present
functions of state government."
MS. HAGEVIG stated, "I think that while all of these bills
purport not to move the capital, the fact is that if you do move
the legislative branch of government, in effect you are moving
the capital, and this is something that we remain gravely
concerned about." Ms. Hagevig said the Alaska Committee is also
very concerned about any efforts made to remove the FRANK
Initiative, an initiative that was passed again by the voters of
the state in 2004 by an over 2:1 margin. She said even though
HB 54 has a zero fiscal note attached, "it simply is not logical
to think that it can really happen without some significant
expense accruing to the project." She said the Alaska Committee
believes that the FRANK Initiative should be retained "so that
the transparency occurs and the people of the state have an
opportunity to react to [the] true cost of moving anything."
9:11:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN stated that he believes HB 54 gives
every opportunity for Juneau to participate. He expressed his
frustration that Juneau decided to keep the playground [next to
the Terry Miller building] rather than using that space to
expand the campus footprint of the capitol. He characterized
that as "a conscious decision made to protect the playground
facility at the expense of supporting having better facilities
for this capitol." He asked Ms. Hagevig if the Alaska Committee
has a vision of what the capitol facilities will look like in 10
years.
9:13:07 AM
MS. HAGEVIG replied that she was on the CBJ Assembly at the time
the decision was made to transfer ownership of the Terry Miller
Building to the legislature, and at that time, she noted, "there
were some issues and concerns about the downtown park as a
playground for the children in downtown Juneau." She assured
Representative Johansen that if HB 54 was to pass and Juneau was
to put forth a project [bid], "all of the land in this immediate
area would be something that we would have to take a very hard
look at." She said the Alaska Committee has worked with its
architects to conceptualize what might happen to the current
foot print of the capitol and its surrounding area to create a
better capitol building. She said the focus of the Alaska
Committee in the last few years has been on access, because she
said the committee was led to believe that was a primary
concern, not only to the legislature, but also to the people of
Alaska. However, she stated that as the shift moves from access
to facilities, the Alaska Committee will also shift its focus.
MS. HAGEVIG, in response to a question from Representative
Johansen, said a couple years ago Mayor Botelho and the CBJ
Assembly conducted a design/build competition [for a new
capitol]. She said that did not end successfully, but
"certainly something else like that would occur." She noted
that the land [at the corner of Egan and Main Street] where
plans are being made to build a 216-space parking garage is
"land that has been set aside traditionally for a new
legislative hall."
9:15:56 AM
MS. HAGEVIG, in response to Representative Gruenberg, confirmed
that if HB 54 were to pass, Juneau would submit a bid to provide
a legislative hall, and would do so enthusiastically.
9:16:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked if the passage of HB 54 would
expedite Juneau's process regarding facilities.
MS. HAGEVIG answered yes. She said the Alaska Committee has
considered conceptual plans, not only for the current footprint,
but for the aforementioned design/build competition. In
response to a follow-up question from Representative Johnson,
she said she is not certain that all the prior years of planning
would be an advantage to Juneau. She explained:
As I look at the list of who sits on the legislative
council and where they come from in the rest of the
state, and I'm hearing lots of conversation here about
people needing, out of necessity, to represent their
own constituencies, I only see two representatives
from Southeast Council on that committee of 14, I
believe, and so, I'm ... obviously concerned about the
makeup of that committee with respect to dealing with
this particular issue.
MS. HAGEVIG, in response to Representative Johnson, clarified
that she did not mean to imply that she or the people of Juneau
do not trust the legislature or the legislative process. She
said CBJ would need to consider enhancing the historic capitol
or "doing something with the parking garage construction that is
scheduled to begin in the very near future."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Ms. Hagevig if the [proposed]
repeal of the FRANK Initiative enhances Ms. Hagevig's level of
trust in the legislature.
MS. HAGEVIG responded that the repeal of the FRANK Initiative is
a major concern for the Alaska Committee. She continued:
We believe this was an initiative that was taken to
the public, that it passed with an over 2:1 margin,
and ... I believe that this is an important enough
issue, because it really does lead us towards ...
where the capital will be located in the state. I
mean, in reality, no other state in the nation
bifurcates its state government to this extent.
9:19:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN noted that the language on page 1, line
8, of the proposed bill, specifies that the legislative hall be
"new". He asked Ms. Hagevig if she thinks that language would
preclude a proposal that included the current capitol building.
MS. HAGEVIG said she does not believe that such a proposal would
be precluded, because it would include the total complex area,
which would be made up of predominately new construction. She
added, "But we do have two options here in Juneau, and we would
have to weigh that very carefully."
VICE CHAIR ROSES noted that the bill sponsor had nodded his head
in affirmation of what Ms. Hagevig said.
9:21:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL thanked Ms. Hagevig for the work she has
done in documenting the efforts that the community of Juneau has
made over a period of many years to accommodate the legislature.
9:21:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN said he thinks "new" means "new," thus,
he is concerned with "the language that would exclude the
upgrades of the current facilities to fit under this proposal."
9:22:59 AM
CLARK GRUENING, Lobbyist, City & Borough of Juneau (CBJ), in
response to a question from Representative Gruenberg, informed
the committee that the land upon which the capitol and the Terry
Miller building sit is owned by the state.
9:24:20 AM
ALBERT JUDSON, said he is a citizen who is conscientious about
the name, Alaska, which means, "The Great Land." He said when
Alaska was being considered for statehood, a legislator in the
Lower 48 said, "I see men of great spirit founding this great
land." Mr. Judson said he would like to see men "match the
mountains of this great state" - to stand up and be counted for
the great spirit that built the state and be committed and
dedicated to preserving Alaska as The Great Land. He said he
does not see that spirit reflected in HB 54.
MR. JUDSON said there is a law that all bills must contain a
single subject. He pointed out that the proposed legislation
addresses the construction of a legislative hall, as well as
"repealing provisions of the capital and legislature and
everything else."
MR. JUDSON said the issue of relocating the capital and/or the
legislature and legislative functions has already been brought
to the people, and, in 2002, every district in Anchorage voted
"no" - they wanted to keep the capital, all legislative
sessions, and the legislature in Juneau. Furthermore, they
wanted the right to know the total cost of all bondable issues,
as well as the socio-economic and environmental impacts to the
move itself. Mr. Judson said when he sees that the
representatives in Anchorage have submitted HB 54, he would have
to say that they are out of line with the wishes of the people
of Anchorage and the rest of the state.
MR. JUDSON continued:
In HB 54, when it talks about the construction of a
legislative hall, at the very beginning it shows how
the capitol building is falling into disrepair and
falling apart and all kinds of complaints about what's
happening here. Well, when I look at the original
constitution that was signed to make Alaska a state,
that constitution says that the legislature shall have
a duty to maintain the capital. The legislature shall
have the duty to maintain the capital. It's the
legislature's duty; it's what the people wanted.
MR. JUDSON said he came to the capitol to testify because he
opposes "something that's disruptive and destroys something
good." He said he would like to know how many times the
representatives who submitted HB 54 have voted to enhance Juneau
as the capital. He asked why Juneau has to fight for every
single penny and survive on subsistence wages, when it is the
capital city. He said Juneau is a place everybody should be
proud of - a place every Senator and Representative should fight
to enhance, so that people who come to Juneau will say, "Wow,
this is the capital? Isn't it really something!" He stated
that he would like to see all legislators pulling in one
direction - the same direction that the founders envisioned when
they founded the state as a great land, and he said he does not
see such unity in HB 54. The proposed legislation, he said,
"does not reflect anything that is good and upright and open and
honest, and that is why I am opposed to it."
9:32:24 AM
MR. JUDSON continued:
How ... do you repay the killing of the Alaskan
spirit? How do you repay that? It is impossible.
How do you repay disrupting people's lives when
they've worked here in the capital, when they live
here in the capital, when they do everything that's
possible here, and they're making a life for their
family? How do repay the ... destruction to people's
lives? I don't see it. I don't see [it] reflected
here in this bill; I don't see anything good ... in
relocating the capital. I see nothing but disruption
and destruction.
MR. JUDSON talked about the coming recession and "the economics
of this bill," and the inflation that people are facing. He
said people in Alaska have always counted every penny for their
survival and "they're holding on to that penny right now just to
survive." Mr. Judson described HB 54 as "a square peg in a
round hole." He concluded:
... This bill is totally out of alignment. It should
be eliminated. It should be destroyed for the good of
the people, to keep the people together, to keep us
going in one direction, to help us to reach the name -
The Great Land, to help us reach the pinnacle of our
existence, our livelihood, all the things that the
founders fought for, including my parents - including
my parents. They were always proud of the state. I
would like something to reflect my pride. I would
like something to continue that commitment and that
dedication.
9:35:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN remarked on the eloquence of Mr. Judson's
testimony.
9:36:07 AM
VICE CHAIR ROSES closed public testimony.
9:37:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN suggested removing the words "the capital"
and "or any of the present functions of state government" from
the bill title, and he reiterated his intent to change "must" to
"may" on page 2, line 4.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, regarding the suggested title change,
said he thinks the word "capital" should remain as long as the
FRANK Initiative repeal language is in the bill. He said, "I
would ask that you search that out."
VICE CHAIR ROSES said it is the intent of committee to hold the
bill to give time for amendments to be submitted in writing.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN expressed appreciation for Ms. Hagevig's
testimony. He suggested, "If Juneau is the best place for a
legislative hall, this may just put that little baby to rest
here." He said HB 54 may be "the best thing to happen to
Juneau." Regarding the issue of access, he said if the capital
is on the road system, "then three-quarters of the state's
population has access to the state legislature." He expressed
appreciation for Gavel to Gavel, but said it is not a system
that cannot be duplicated easily. Regarding Alaska Airlines, he
said he is certain that the company would offer the same
opportunities to members from all around the state to fly to
wherever the legislature meets. He mentioned his experience of
falling when trying to navigate on Juneau's snowy hillside
residences. Regarding Internet streaming, he said that is a
feature that all communities are developing.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN said the House State Affairs Standing
Committee heard testimony by both Ms. Hagevig and Mayor Botelho
that "we need a new legislative building." He offered his
understanding that the building "across the street" was offered
up to anyone, but no one wanted it, so the state took it. He
expressed appreciation for the architecture of the capitol,
noting that as a woodworker, he has studied structure,
architecture, and form. However, he listed the hazards in the
building, including: [poor accessibility] for those with
handicaps, [insufficient] fire escapes, and the possible
existence of asbestos.
9:42:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN spoke of Juneau's ability to advance other
economic opportunities, such as its tourist industry and related
tax, and fish tax money that can be used for harbor repairs. He
stated that the legislature has worked with Juneau and its
surrounding areas in Southeast Alaska to aide in the advancement
of economic opportunities in those areas. He reminded the
committee that HB 54 is proposing that a developer cover the
cost, not the legislature. He stated that he is willing to work
on amendment ideas, as long as they don't change the intent of
bill.
9:44:58 AM
VICE CHAIR ROSES announced that HB 54 was heard and held.
The committee took a brief at-ease from 9:45:12 AM to 9:45:19
AM, during which time Vice Chair Roses turned the gavel back
over to Chair Lynn.
HB 261-CLEAN ELECTIONS
9:47:00 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the last order of business was SPONSOR
SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 261, "An Act establishing a
program of public funding for the financing of election
campaigns of candidates for state elected offices, to be known
as the Clean Elections Act."
9:48:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GABRIELLE LeDOUX, Alaska State Legislature,
offered a brief introduction commencing the hearing on SSHB 261.
She stated that money is often a corrupting influence in
politics, which is the reason for the proposed legislation. In
response to a question from Chair Lynn, she confirmed that she
is not associated with the Clean Elections Initiative.
9:49:16 AM
SUZANNE HANCOCK, Staff, Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Alaska
State Legislature, presenting SSHB 261 on behalf of
Representative LeDoux, prime sponsor, stated that clean
elections enhance democracy and affirm the principle of "one
person, one vote" by "reducing the disproportionate influence of
large contributors on elections and enabling citizens of all
backgrounds to participate equally in the democratic process."
She said the proposed legislation would strengthen public
confidence in government, while eliminating the danger and
perception of corruption cause by the private financing of
election campaigns. Furthermore, it would increase the
accountability of elected officials to the voting public.
MS. HANCOCK reported that seven states and two cities have
already incorporated clean election laws. She said clean
elections benefit incumbents who are planning to run for
reelection, because their time is freed to deal with issues
rather than trying to fundraise. She noted that in 2006,
candidates for state offices in Alaska and those groups who
supported them raised more than $17 million. She said the
process of fundraising is time consuming and "it's a lot easier
to go to special interest groups who can provide you with an
opportunity to garner many dollars rather than go to individual
people for small amounts of money." She reported that one state
with a clean election law in place has found that contributions
have increased by 34 percent, and by checking zip codes, it is
apparent that those contributions are coming from the poorer
members of society rather than the richer ones. She stated,
"So, this is an opportunity for people to actually pick their
candidates, and for candidates who normally wouldn't have an
opportunity to run to be able to pursue public office."
9:51:42 AM
CHAIR LYNN asked the bill sponsor if she would consider an
amendment to change the use of the term "clean elections" to
"some other less proscriptive word."
REPRESENTATIVE LeDOUX responded that she does not care what the
bill is called; it is the substance that matters.
9:53:04 AM
TIM JUNE, Chair, Alaskans for Clean Elections, said Alaskans for
Clean Elections is the sponsor of the Alaska Clean Elections
Initiative. In response to Chair Lynn, he said currently both
related House and Senate bills share the same language as the
initiative. He reported that 33,500 signatures on the
initiative were recently submitted to the Division of Elections,
of which 24,000 were verified. He also said verification was
made regarding the minimum requirement of 34-40 districts. Mr.
June said Alaskans for Clean Elections conducted a poll in March
2007 that showed that 70 percent of Alaskans support clean
elections.
MR. JUNE related that the clean elections system is a voluntary
system of campaign funding, which is law in the following seven
states: Arizona, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New
Mexico, North Carolina, and Vermont. Maine and Arizona have had
a clean elections system in place for over a decade, with 84 and
42 percent of candidates "using clean elections," respectively.
He stated that it is a "tried and true" system.
MR. JUNE said Alaskans for Clean Elections took the following
steps in coming up with its initiative: wrote 22 drafts,
including six former legislators in the drafting committee;
worked with legislators to get a bi-partisan bill in both the
House and Senate - bills which have been vetted through
Legislative Legal and Research Services, the Office of the
Lieutenant Governor, and the Office of the Attorney General; and
used the best of the laws of the aforementioned seven states to
come up with the language of the initiative.
MR. JUNE named the following endorsers of the Clean Elections
Initiative: constitutional fathers Victor Fisher and George
Rogers; former governors Walter J. Hickel and Tony Knowles;
leaders from five of the six political parties; Mayors Whitaker,
Botelho, Dapcevich, and Shields; U.S. Senate candidates David
Cutty and Ray Metcalf; U.S. House candidates Representative
Gabrielle LeDoux, Ethan Berkowitz, Dianne Benson, and Jake
Metcalf; the National Education Association (NEA); the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW); AARP;
and the Alaska Women's Political Caucus (AKWPC).
9:56:19 AM
MR. JUNE pointed out that the clean elections system is not only
funded by general funding, but also by the $5-dollar
contributions that candidates collect to qualify for clean
elections. He continued:
... If we assume 100 percent participation, that would
include about $310,000 ... an election cycle from
those $5 contributions. It also includes any leftover
campaign money [that] goes back in the clean election
fund, and then any fines that are levied. So, I would
just like to make a note that that was not included in
the fiscal note.
MR. JUNE, regarding the fiscal analysis, noted that in both the
Alaska Public Offices Commission's (APOC's) fiscal note and the
one prepared for the Clean Elections Initiative, the annual cost
was notated as $6 million a year. He said, "The cost in here is
reflective of an election cycle, which happens every two years,
so please be sure to divide that by two when you're calculating
that cost."
MR. JUNE stated that the cost of a clean elections system would
be 3.4 percent of an annual $10 billion-plus capital operating
budget, which he said is "a percent of a percent of a percent."
He said the incremental cost of a clean elections system has
nothing to do with the budget but everything to do with good
government. He asked the committee to support SSHB 261. He
read a quote from U.S. Senator and Presidential candidate John
McCain, as follows:
Any voter with a healthy understanding of the flaws of
human nature and who notices the vast amount of money
solicited and received by politicians cannot help but
believe that we are unduly influenced by our
benefactor's generosity.
9:58:23 AM
MR. JUNE, in response to Chair Lynn, confirmed that a question
on the aforementioned poll was whether the person taking the
poll favored clean elections. In response to a follow-up
question from Chair Lynn, he said no one was asked if they
favored dirty elections.
9:58:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES said both the opening language of the bill
and the presentation given describe how a clean elections system
enhances democracy and improves the opportunity for voters to
participate. He asked Mr. June to expand on that topic and to
talk about how clean elections seem to affect the rate of
reelection for incumbents.
MR. JUNE responded that in terms of enhancing democracy, the
State of Arizona has had a 34 percent increase in voter turnout
in non-Presidential election years and a 7 percent increase in
Presidential election years since enacting [its Citizens Clean
Elections Act]. Furthermore, he noted that Arizona's rate of
contributions to political campaigns has increased three-fold.
He echoed Ms. Hancock's testimony that the more accessible $5-
dollar contribution has shifted the political donor class from
the upper-middle class to the middle and lower classes.
MR. JUNE, regarding incumbency, reported that a study done in
California showed that 98 percent of that state's political
races were determined by who raised the most money in his/her
campaign. In Arizona, he said, incumbency before the state
adopted a clean elections system was about 96 percent. He
offered his understanding that the rate after Arizona's clean
elections system was in place was approximately 76 percent. He
said, "So, it has some effect on it, but I would not say a
devastating effect." He stated that incumbents obviously have
the advantage of getting their names in the news and getting
known for the bills they sponsor, and there is not way to affect
that advantage. He said, "What this does is really just try to
take the money element out of determining who wins and election,
and instead put it in terms of issues and voters."
10:02:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BERTA GARDNER, Alaska State Legislature,
announced for the record that yesterday the House passed a bill
prohibiting all fundraising for political purposes during a
legislative session. She said the bill was broadly supported
for good reason: "the appearance and potential conflict of
raising money during the session." She said she thinks a clean
elections system would help address that issue. She asked
everyone to consider the following question: "If it's
inappropriate and damaging to the process to collect money on
January 15 - the first day of session - why is January 14
significantly different?" She added that that is a rhetorical
question.
[SSHB 261 was heard and held.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
10:03:05 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|