Legislature(2011 - 2012)CAPITOL 106
03/22/2012 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HCR28 | |
| HB347 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 347 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HCR 28 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 22, 2012
8:07 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bob Lynn, Chair
Representative Wes Keller, Vice Chair
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Pete Petersen
Representative Kyle Johansen
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 28
Proclaiming the month of April 2012 to be Sexual Assault
Awareness Month.
- MOVED HCR 28 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 347
"An Act prohibiting the use of municipal funds to support or
oppose an initiative proposal to circulate a petition for a
ballot initiative, or to influence the outcome of an election
concerning a ballot initiative, without approval by municipal
voters at an election."
- MOVED HB 347 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HCR 28
SHORT TITLE: SEXUAL ASSAULT AWARENESS MONTH
SPONSOR(s): COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
03/15/12 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/15/12 (H) STA
03/22/12 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 347
SHORT TITLE: USE OF MUNICIPAL FUNDS FOR INITIATIVES
SPONSOR(s): OLSON
02/22/12 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/22/12 (H) STA, JUD
03/22/12 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
RACHEL KALLANDER, Staff
Representative Cathy Munoz
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HCR 28 on behalf of the House
Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee (HCRA),
sponsor, on which Representative Munoz is chair.
ROWENA PALOMAR, Executive Director
Advocates for Victims of Violence (AVV)
Valdez, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the designation of
April as Sexual Assault Awareness Month, during the hearing on
HCR 28.
SARALYN TABACHNICK, Executive Director
Aiding Women in Abuse and Rape Emergencies (AWARE);
Chair
Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (ANDVSA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support HCR 28.
LAUREE MORTON, Executive Director
Council on Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault (CDVSA)
Department of Public Safety
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HCR 28.
REPRESENTATIVE KURT OLSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As sponsor, presented HB 347.
ANNA LATHAM, Staff
Representative Kurt Olson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 347 on behalf of
Representative Olson, sponsor.
KATHIE WASSERMAN, Executive Director
Alaska Municipal League (AML)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 347.
MAKO HAGGERTY
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of himself in
opposition to HB 347.
SCOTT RUBY, Director
Division of Community and Regional Affairs
Department of Commerce, Community, and Regional Development
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 347.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:07:11 AM
CHAIR BOB LYNN called the House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:07 a.m. Representatives Keller, Seaton,
P. Wilson, Petersen, and Lynn were present at the call to order.
Representatives Johansen and Gruenberg arrived as the meeting
was in progress.
HCR 28-SEXUAL ASSAULT AWARENESS MONTH
8:07:32 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the first order of business was HOUSE
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 28, Proclaiming the month of April
2012 to be Sexual Assault Awareness Month.
8:07:43 AM
RACHEL KALLANDER, Staff, Representative Cathy Munoz, Alaska
State Legislature, presented HCR 28 on behalf of the House
Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee (HCRA),
sponsor, on which Representative Munoz is chair. She stated
that Alaska has the highest rates of sexual assault in the
country, estimated at 2.5 times the national average; it is an
epidemic that, until stopped, will continue to devastate
Alaska's individuals, families, and communities. She said HCR
28, along with the governor's "Choose Respect" campaign,
hopefully will send a message to Alaskans that sexual violence
is not to be tolerated, silenced, or covered up. Ms. Kallander
said the resolution recognizes the many volunteers, staff, and
agencies that provide victims of sexual assault with safety,
options, and justice. She said claiming April as sexual assault
awareness month is "an honorable recognition of the great need
in Alaska to combat this epidemic ... by speaking out, listening
to those who have been harmed, and removing the veil of silence
from this issue." She encouraged co-sponsorship of HCR 28.
8:10:17 AM
MS. KALLANDER, in response to Chair Lynn, said the sponsor could
work with the Office of the Governor to come up with a list of
those to whom copies of the proposed concurrent resolution would
be sent.
8:11:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN asked what would be done to make the
public aware of the designation of April 2012 as Sexual Assault
Awareness Month.
MS. KALLANDER indicated that a resolution has been made [in
Alaska] since 2001, and she said many communities and states
across the country have had similar legislation since the 1990s.
She said she would bring this issue up with the sponsor, and she
expressed her hope that the delivery of this campaign's message
would be aligned with the Choose Respect campaign.
CHAIR LYNN suggested that a presentation could be made by the
governor in conjunction with HCR 28.
8:12:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON, in response to Ms. Kallander's urging
committee members to co-sponsor HCR 28, offered her
understanding that the committee could not do so because HCR 28
is being presented by the House State Affairs Standing Committee
already.
CHAIR LYNN suggested that [a member of the committee] could make
a statement when HCR 28 reaches the House floor.
8:13:41 AM
ROWENA PALOMAR, Executive Director, Advocates for Victims of
Violence (AVV), related that AVV is a shelter for victims of
domestic violence and sexual assault, and stated her support of
the designation of April as Sexual Assault Awareness Month. She
said the proposed legislation will send the message to victims
that there are people ready to listen and help. Ms. Palomar
listed the following activities AVV has planned in Valdez for
April Sexual Assault Awareness Month: reading of the
proclamation at the Valdez City Council meeting on April 2; a
Walk a Mile in Her Shoes event on April 3, which will be led by
men walking in high heels and flip flops to get an idea of the
position a woman is in when assaulted; partnering with the
school district to have students draw depictions on t-shirts
showing how they want to be protected, and displaying those t-
shirts in the school; and holding a women of distinction event
honoring female role models in the community. She expressed
thanks to Ms. Kallander and emphasized the importance of women
coming forward to tell their stories.
8:19:01 AM
MS. PALOMAR, in response to Representative Seaton and Chair
Lynn, stated her preference that all Aprils be designated as
Sexual Assault Awareness Month - not just 2012.
8:19:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON suggested finding out what the sponsor
would like to do.
8:20:29 AM
MS. KALLANDER said she does not know the position of the sponsor
regarding that question, but once again offered her
understanding that similar resolutions have been passed each
year since 2001.
8:21:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said she carried a resolution that made
February Heart Awareness month, and she said the American Heart
Association stated a preference for the resolution to be made
each year. However, she noted that that resolution is still in
the possession of the Senate, so it is too late for 2012. She
said she thinks it would be a good idea to pass HCR 28 as a one-
time resolution that would make every succeeding April Sexual
Assault Awareness Month.
MS. PALOMAR concurred.
8:22:23 AM
CHAIR LYNN offered his understanding that that would require a
bill, not just a resolution.
8:22:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG echoed the chair's remark.
CHAIR LYNN said National Guard Day just passed in the form of a
bill. He commented that no one knows today what legislative
schedules will be a year from now.
8:23:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said he would resist making a permanent
designation, because people are uncomfortable talking about the
issue and there is value in bringing it up each year. He said
he would like a direct response from the sponsor on the issue
before making this decision.
CHAIR LYNN said it was unfortunate that Gavel to Gavel was not
present to televise this meeting.
8:25:16 AM
MS. KALLANDER stated a preference to speak with all involved
agencies before the committee considered changing the proposed
concurrent resolution to be perpetual.
CHAIR LYNN suggested that that conversation take place before
considering the issue again next year.
8:26:41 AM
SARALYN TABACHNICK, Executive Director, Aiding Women in Abuse
and Rape Emergencies (AWARE); Chair, Alaska Network on Domestic
Violence and Sexual Assault (ANDVSA), testified in support of
HCR 28. She said the resolution states many reasons that this
designation is important for Alaska, and she expressed
appreciation for the committee's focus on the issue. She
related that a 2010 survey revealed that over 37 percent of
adult women in Alaska experience sexual violence in their
lifetime. She said the survey did not count the number of men
or children who have been victims of sexual violence. She
stated that bringing awareness to the issue through HCR 28 will
invite individuals and communities to speak about sexual
assault, which will allow for greater intervention and
prevention services. She said, "It helps take away the shame
and take away the blame."
MS. TABACHNICK listed the following activities planned in Juneau
for April: a training to engage men in the work of AWARE, on
April 3; a healing art exhibit on April 6; and the annual
waterfront race on April 7. She said next week the governor
will hold his Choose Respect march, which will take place in 120
communities in Alaska. She said AWARE appreciates the
legislature's support for victims of sexual assault and
violence.
CHAIR LYNN pointed out that the elderly are also victims of
sexual assault.
8:29:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked Ms. Tabachnick to clarify that she
was talking about the normal response of the victims to feel
shame and blame themselves.
MS. TABACHNICK answered that is correct.
CHAIR LYNN remarked that often there is shame and blame with
family members who question why they were not aware of abuse
going on within the family.
8:32:01 AM
LAUREE MORTON, Executive Director, Council on Domestic Violence
& Sexual Assault (CDVSA), Department of Public Safety, said she
is currently in Fairbanks, Alaska, overseeing the training of
eight sexual assault response teams, comprised of law
enforcement officers, advocates, health care providers, and
prosecutors. She stated her belief that it is important for
"the leaders of the state to say with one voice that help is
available, survivors will be believed, and offenders will be
held accountable." She talked about the opportunity the
legislature has to spread awareness, not only through HCR 28,
but through constituent outreach. She spoke of safety at home
and work, noting that coworkers and relatives are more likely
than others to commit acts of sexual violence.
MS. MORTON expressed her appreciation of the acknowledgment in
HCR 28 of "the people who are dedicated to this work and the
call to assist them in this effort." She said there are heroes
around the state who respond to help victims of sexual assault.
She thanked the committee for its "constant support and work on
these issues over the years," and she asked for the committee's
support of HCR 28.
8:35:10 AM
CHAIR LYNN, after ascertaining that there was no one else who
wished to testify, closed public testimony.
8:35:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG reported that legal holidays are listed
in AS 44.12.010. He said Martin Luther King Day was first set
up as a "day of honor," then it moved to become a statute. He
said, "There are a whole bunch of those statutes," ranging from
AS 44.12.030 to AS 44.12.118. He offered some examples. He
suggested that the committee may want to consider designating
sexual awareness in statute.
8:37:34 AM
MS. KALLANDER said that is an important question for next year,
and she said she will speak with the sponsor and other agencies.
8:38:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to report HCR 28 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HCR was reported out of the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
8:39:18 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:39 a.m. to 8:41 a.m.
HB 347-USE OF MUNICIPAL FUNDS FOR INITIATIVES
8:41:20 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the last order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 347, "An Act prohibiting the use of municipal funds to
support or oppose an initiative proposal to circulate a petition
for a ballot initiative, or to influence the outcome of an
election concerning a ballot initiative, without approval by
municipal voters at an election."
8:41:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KURT OLSON, Alaska State Legislature, as sponsor,
presented HB 347. He said the bill would provide checks and
balances to the "expenditure of the money." He said he had
hoped the quarterly report from the Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC) was available, but said he believes someone in
the room may have a better understanding of "what the total will
be." He surmised, "It's probably going to come in at about
$250,000, possibly more." He offered his understanding that
"the actual dollars spent on gathering these signatures will be
somewhere between 80 and 100 thousand dollars."
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON noted that included in the committee packet
is information regarding related laws in 20 other states. He
said other states' laws are stricter. He said if he had had
that information in the beginning, he might have changed HB 347;
however, he indicated that he was satisfied with the balance the
proposed legislation would provide.
8:44:16 AM
CHAIR LYNN commented that quite often those trying to get an
initiative passed don't have the same funds available as the
city.
8:45:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON offered an example of petition gathering
where no public money was spent and an example where the
petition signature gatherers were paid. He said often the money
spent by municipalities has come from the state. He said his
issue is with public money being used.
8:48:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN listed the amounts spent by various
municipal entities on initiative petition gathering, as follows:
the Alaska Municipal League, $5,000; the Alaska Conference of
Mayors, $10,000; North Slope Borough, $25,000; Bristol Bay
Borough, $4,000; the community of Pribilof Island, $10,000; and
the City of Valdez, $5,000.
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON pointed out that "those are only the
numbers that have been reported."
CHAIR LYNN said the money spent came from taxes of the people
who may or may not agree with the issue.
8:49:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN offered his understanding that municipal
revenue sharing is based on the price of oil and, thus, some of
the money comes from the state's operating budget. He said
during a recent signature gathering there was no paid opposition
to the gathering of the signatures, which he said is fine.
CHAIR LYNN said ultimately the money comes from the citizens of
the state.
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON said that is why he wants to compare this
with the legislative Capital Project Submission & Information
System (CAPSIS) project.
8:51:06 AM
ANNA LATHAM, Staff, Representative Kurt Olson, Alaska State
Legislature, presented HB 347 on behalf of Representative Olson,
sponsor. She stated:
Currently municipalities can spend thousands of
dollars on consultants and paid signature collectors
to influence the outcome of a ballot initiative.
Although voters may be in support of a ballot
initiative, they may be not be in favor of municipal
funds being allocated to special interest groups to
finance that initiative, as Alaska law currently
allows.
This bill creates awareness about where municipal
funds are actually going and it empowers voters. If
the voters' priorities are the same as the
municipalities, voters would approve of funds to
influence a ballot initiative. And if the voters'
priorities differed from the municipal agenda, the
process would stop before additional funds were spent.
So, in a sense, HB 347 could be a cost-saving measure
as the state shifts to become more fiscally
conservative.
MS. LATHAM said 14 of the 20 states reviewed by Legislative
Legal and Research Services prohibited the use of public funds
to support or oppose an initiative altogether. Those states,
she said, are: Arizona, California, Georgia, Florida, Idaho,
Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota,
Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. She said those states do
allow municipalities to extend funds to provide information or
educational materials regarding an initiative. She said HB 347
is not nearly as restrictive as the current legislation in the
states she just listed; it would allow municipalities to use
funds with voter approval. She said the intent of HB 347 is to
keep the ballot initiative process fair and to ensure that the
priorities of the municipalities are the same as the priorities
of its citizens.
8:53:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked what the cost to the boroughs would
be for authorizing expenditures of funds for special elections
and how those costs would relate to the cost that
"municipalities have put in to the recent initiative."
MS. LATHAM answered that that would depend on the size of the
municipality.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if Ms. Latham could answer the
question for any specific borough.
MS. LATHAM said she could find out that information.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON opined that it is important to find out
that information on behalf of those people who have elected
their municipal leaders. He said, "If the effect of this is to
dramatically increase the cost of participation, then we need to
know that." He offered his understanding that a special
election held in the Kenai Peninsula Borough costs approximately
$300,000.
8:55:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER directed attention to language on page 1,
line 7, which read, "When expenditure of money is authorized by
(b) or (c) of this section", and he said he is not familiar with
subsections (b) and (c).
8:56:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON responded as follows:
It was quite contentious when it was brought up to the
Council of Mayors. I believe that the small mayors
outnumbered the large mayors in this one person/one
vote. ... The three or four mayors that were
adamantly against expending monies on the initiative
represented probably 60-65 percent of the state.
8:57:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said the cost varies depending on
factors such as whether an initiative is going to be added to an
already planned special election or a special election is being
called just for the initiative. She stated her preference to
not have municipalities paying [for initiative processes] with
money the state has given for other purposes.
8:58:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN stated, "This is not about voicing an
opinion; this about writing a check." He said any municipality
can voice an opinion through a resolution or through letters to
the mayor. He said of the $100,000 raised by municipalities,
$50,000 was sent to a signature gatherer in Anchorage.
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON said Representative Johansen's statement is
accurate. He related that he has not heard any negative
feedback on this proposed bill.
9:00:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Ms. Latham if she inquired of
Legislative Legal and Research Services whether any courts have
construed the constitutionality, particularly in regard to the
possible infringement of the municipalities' right to free
speech.
MS. LATHAM answered no, but said she received a court opinion
that said "initiative petition circulation is poor political
speech." She said, "So, that cannot be prohibited. What we
could prohibit, as other states have already done, is to
prohibit municipalities from receiving."
9:02:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked for a copy of that case and any
other related legal matter. He said it seems that an initiative
is one method of expressing an opposition to a government policy
or program, usually utilized by people who cannot gain redress
through the normal form of representative government. He said,
"It would seem to me that the application of a ... law like this
would be to allow the initiative sponsors to present their side
of the case yet to prohibit the municipality from presenting its
side of the case." He ventured that if there is going to be an
election to determine whether municipal money can be spent, it
will change only the timing of the debate.
9:04:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON responded that [under HB 347], at least
[the municipality] would know whether the people supported the
direction in which it was going.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG concurred. He said the debate would
take place around the time of the election that would be held to
decide whether to spend money on the initiative.
9:05:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN argued that the debate may not be
limited to the issue. To Representative Gruenberg's first
question, he pointed to [the first sentence of] the third
footnote in the aforementioned Legislative Legal and Research
Services memorandum, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
In Idaho, Massachusetts and New Mexico, the
prohibition is not codified in law but rather,
pursuant to court rulings.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said this issue is interesting because
it deals not only with policy, but also with legal issues. He
named two issues: free speech and a question regarding what
right a municipality has under the articles in the state
constitution dealing with municipality government. He offered
his understanding that under HB 347 there is no issue with the
latter, but said he "did not see anything on the free speech
issue."
9:07:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON stated, "That was my overriding concern,
and it was expressed that way to the [bill] drafter."
9:07:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to a paragraph in the Legislative
Legal and Research Services memorandum [regarding Ballot Measure
1], which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
The initiative would have banned the use of public
funds for political campaigns and lobbying by state
and local government agencies and school districts to
support or oppose ballot measures, lobby to pass a
law, or request public funding. The measure failed as
nearly 61 percent of voters cast their ballots against
it.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked how [Ballot Measure 1] and HB 347
differ.
9:08:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON answered that HB 347 is less restrictive
and does not include school districts, for example. He said he
would distribute a copy of Ballot Measure 1 [included in the
committee packet].
9:08:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained he is trying to figure out if
the issue is the same, because if it is he questioned why a
different result from the voters would be anticipated.
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON said reading the language of Ballot Measure
1 would answer Representative Seaton's query.
9:09:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN said as a result of a Supreme Court
ruling in the Citizens United case, it is unlawful to limit the
political speech of corporations and unions. He questioned
whether trying to limit the free speech of municipalities would
result in another court battle.
CHAIR LYNN said the committee needs to get input from the
Department of Law.
9:10:30 AM
KATHIE WASSERMAN, Executive Director, Alaska Municipal League,
testified in opposition to HB 347. She directed attention to
language in the sponsor statement [included in the committee
packet], which indicates HB 347 would prohibit municipalities
from spending "copious amounts of money" to advance their own
agenda. She questioned the meaning of copious in this context.
She explained that any amount of money spent on an initiative
must go through a hearing process in the municipality. That
hearing process must be legally posted and advertised. She said
there are two hearings, and public input is allowed. She
posited that it is false to say people do not have the ability
to be part of the process. Ms. Wasserman expressed concern with
the statement that municipalities follow their own agenda. She
said elected officials never have 100 percent of their
constituency backing them; however, they are elected, they have
fiduciary responsibilities, and some of them do have agenda.
She said agenda is not always a bad word.
9:13:28 AM
MS. WASSERMAN disagreed with the sponsor's statement that the
mayors who were against spending money [on the aforementioned
initiative] represented 65 percent of the state. She said they
were from the same area and represented a large population, but
not 65 percent. She emphasized that a vote was taken. She said
the 2010 initiative referred to by Representative Seaton was one
that the municipalities, through AML, ran the campaign against.
She said, "We did that with many organizations across the state,
and we were able to defeat that initiative, but it also
protected the state legislators from spending any money on
anything that they voted on." Ms. Wasserman said she received
thanks from many legislators for taking the stand against that
initiative. She said, "And now we have an initiative that is
against some of the legislators, and suddenly it shouldn't be
done. And I just have a very difficult time understanding why
it's dependent on which viewpoint we take."
9:15:01 AM
CHAIR LYNN noted that one of the co-sponsors of HB 347 is
Representative Anna Fairclough, who was a prominent member of
the Anchorage Assembly, and he stated his assumption that she
has intimate knowledge of municipal politics in that community.
9:15:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to the information in the
Legislative Legal and Research Services memorandum and said the
document shows only how many states prohibit the use of public
funds to support or oppose an initiative. He said those laws
could take various forms. He offered the following hypothetical
examples: public funds may not be used to oppose or support a
ballot measure or an initiative; and the only prohibition is to
use public funds to speak out on an initiative proposed by the
voters. He said this brings up a fundamental question of
whether it is constitutional and good policy only to oppose
public funds vis-à-vis an initiative. He concluded: "Why
should it make a difference whether something's proposed by the
voters as opposed [to] ... the municipality? In both cases, the
voters are asked to approve it."
9:18:29 AM
MS. WASSERMAN said municipalities have donated money, but none
have sponsored "the current initiative"; it was sponsored by a
group formed separately. She said with the way some national
laws have changed, under HB 347 municipalities would be "the
only ones that can't say anything." She relayed that the lesson
learned from "the last initiative that we fought against a group
that carried the gag law to the voters" was that expenditure of
money means "while you're on the clock, you can't say anything
... unless you are at home, on your own phone." She said that
calls into question whether a mayor, who is not paid, is on the
clock 24 hours a day. She said initiatives may involve
municipalities, and she opined that municipalities need to be
able to represent themselves in a timely manner. In response to
Representative Gruenberg, she said she would seek out legal
research on this issue.
9:20:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to language in the bill
title, starting on line 2, which read, "or to influence the
outcome of an election concerning a ballot initiative". He
asked Ms. Wasserman if her interpretation from "the previous
bill initiative" is that a municipal official who traveled to
Juneau when hearings were taking place would be prohibited from
taking part in those hearings.
MS. WASSERMAN answered yes. She said, "We were told that they
would be prohibited from taking part in anything." She added,
"It's a lot more far reaching than just handing a check over."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he thinks it would be an interesting
situation if initiatives are brought up that would directly
affect municipalities, but the representatives of those
municipalities were prohibited from sending people to Juneau to
talk to the legislature.
9:22:33 AM
CHAIR LYNN suggested adding a provision stating that the
proposed legislation would not prohibit municipal employees who
are on the clock from communicating with or testifying before
the legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that would help, and it would further
help if those municipal employees were allowed to have hearings
in their own municipality.
9:24:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN said "this" is not "a flat-out
prohibition from taking part in the process." He then said a
borough could set up a structure that could "run through the
ballot one time and create a pot of money" that could be used to
deal with initiatives. He said that would keep "the big money"
out, but would allow for staff to testify.
MS. WASSERMAN, in response to series of questions from
Representative Johansen, confirmed that the Conference of Mayors
is part of the structure of AML, but the two entities have
separate bank accounts. The executive boards of each
organization, through votes, decide how the money is spent. She
said AML's money comes from membership dues from municipalities,
business sponsors, and associates throughout the state that join
AML, nonprofit organizations, and associations. Additionally,
AML charges fees for training in, for example, grant writing,
parliamentary procedure, and how to run a good meeting. She
relayed that the information pertaining to AML's money sources
is posted on its web site and available to the public. In
regard to her previous statement that two hearings are given,
she confirmed that that applies to every municipality in the
state.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN offered his understanding that some
municipalities utilize consent calendars, on which all topics
are listed, and if someone must make a motion to bring the topic
forward. He said he has seen some large appropriations go
through the Ketchikan Borough Assembly on a consent calendar
without any reading or discussion.
MS. WASSERMAN, in response to Chair Lynn, estimated that 60
percent of AML's funding comes from municipalities. She offered
further information regarding benefits of membership.
9:31:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN said there is state law that prohibits
people from using legislatively appropriated money to lobby the
legislature. He said AML could say that it does not use the
municipal revenue sharing money, but uses "the money we get from
the 40 or 50 people or the other money." He questioned whether
at some point that other money would run out and AML would be
left with only municipal money. He said there is a comingling
of funds.
CHAIR LYNN asked if the funds are comingled.
MS. WASSERMAN answered yes. In response to a follow-up
question, she said the board decides how to use the funds.
9:32:51 AM
MS. WASSERMAN, in response to Representative Johansen, said she
has only four employees, so if smaller communities need help
with balance sheets and budgets, she defers them to a source of
help.
9:34:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said, "It seems like we're saying, 'Since
you're a member of an organization, then any organization that
you're a member of is prohibited from using any funds from that
organization to support or oppose an initiative.'" He said he
thinks the committee should qualify that with the sponsor.
9:36:18 AM
MAKO HAGGERTY specified that although he sits on the Kenai
Peninsula Borough Assembly, he is testifying on behalf of
himself. He relayed that he is one of the co-sponsors of the
Coastal Management Program Initiative. He said his first
reaction to reading HB 347 is that it is a gag order to silence
those who are making an effort to represent themselves. He said
one thing that is done at the municipal level is the allocation
of money. He said the top ordinances introduced at the last
assembly meeting were for: $29,000, $200,000, $569,000, and
$4.7 million. He said those are large sums of money that the
public trusts the assembly to allocate. He said the
municipalities felt it was important to spend $5,000-$28,000 on
the initiative, which he said is minor compared to the amount of
money it would take to run an election to see if municipalities
could even speak to the issue.
MR. HAGGERTY stated his opposed to HB 347, which he described as
"nothing less than an unfunded mandate." He warned that if
passed, municipalities would be forced to spend a lot of money
that they would not have spent in the first place. He said
there have been several local initiatives that have had an
adverse effect on the way the Kenai Peninsula Borough does
business, and under HB 347, the assembly would not be allowed to
explain why an initiative would harm the municipality. He
concluded, "No matter which direction you come at this bill, it
just ... seems kind of knee jerk and shortsighted."
9:40:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, regarding Mr. Haggerty's comment that
under HB 347 the assembly would not be allowed to explain a
ballot measure, said that is not the way he interprets the
proposed legislation.
MR. HAGGERTY said he does not agree because of the way
information is interpreted. He said someone will decide the
explanation is in support or opposition to an initiative.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he thinks that would depend on how
the message was crafted.
9:42:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER, regarding previous comments about
restrictions on holding hearings, said when the legislature
holds hearings, the intent is to listen to the community, not to
steer the community. He said he cannot see where a restriction
on spending money can possibly be construed to be a restriction
on freedom of speech.
9:44:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN asked Mr. Haggerty if he believes that
voters give the assembly members the power to manage the
community's money, and that if they don't like the way the money
is managed, they can choose to not re-elect any of those
members.
MR. HAGGERTY answered yes. He said those who elected him expect
him to listen and make good choices based on differing opinions
of the public. He said another reason he thinks HB 347 is not
necessary is because if a municipality is going to spend money
to support or oppose an initiative, it will still have to notify
the community and base its decisions off of the public's
response. He indicated that in his community, that response is
great.
9:46:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN told Mr. Haggerty he does not appreciate
"assigning the motive of introducing the bill because of a
specific initiative." He said, "Language such as this that was
compared to the ... anti-corruption initiative, that language
was introduced in 2007, so this issue ... is not a reaction to a
specific initiative." Regarding Mr. Haggerty's remark about
being responsive to the local constituency, Representative
Johansen said [the legislature] needs to be responsive to the
state, and "this" is about state money.
9:47:54 AM
SCOTT RUBY, Director, Division of Community and Regional
Affairs, Department of Commerce, Community, and Regional
Development, testified that the division provides advice and
assistance to municipalities "on these types of issues." In
regard to the previous question about subsections (b) and (c),
he said those subsections address how a municipality may use
money to explain initiatives and expressly authorizes
municipalities to do so. He said there is a zero fiscal note
because the division already has staff that provides assistance
to communities and works with AML in providing training and
assistance to the municipalities.
9:49:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON expressed appreciation of Mr. Haggerty's
petition signature gathering efforts, for which Mr. Haggerty
used no municipal funds. Regarding intent language, he said he
thinks there are some qualified people who could address some of
the issues raised today.
9:51:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON, in response to Representative Seaton, said
the intent of the bill is not to disallow elected community
leaders from coming to testify before the legislature in Juneau.
He clarified that the only intent of HB 347 is to prevent state
monies from being used for signature gathering.
9:52:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said he would like to move the bill, and
he emphasized that he thinks the issues raised today could be
addressed by the next committee of referral.
9:52:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he would object to a motion, because
he thinks "we all represent communities." He said he checked
with one of his municipalities who object to the proposed
legislation, and he has not yet checked with the rest of his
constituent communities, an obligation he said he must fulfill.
CHAIR LYNN remarked that the bill was noticed.
9:54:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to report HB 347 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note.
9:54:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected.
9:54:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN, regarding the remark by Chair Lynn,
noted that HB 347 was noticed 6 days and 18 hours ago, which he
opined is ample time in which to canvas a district for opinions.
He reiterated that HB 347 does not speak to any specific
initiative, but speaks for itself. He opined that it is ironic
that the sponsor of the aforementioned Ballot Measure 1 is the
same person who received $50,000 to put the Alaska Sea Party's
initiative [Ballot Measure 2 in support of Coastal Zone
Management] on the ballot. He stated his support for HB 347.
9:56:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN objected to the motion to move HB 347
out of committee. He reiterated his concern that it would open
the state up to legal entanglement.
CHAIR LYNN said as a member of the next committee of referral,
the House Judiciary Standing Committee, he will ensure that
someone is present from the Department of Law to speak to that
issue.
9:56:51 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Johansen, P.
Wilson, Keller, and Lynn voted in favor of the motion to move HB
347 out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. Representatives Petersen and Seaton
voted against it. Therefore, HB 347 was reported out of the
House State Affairs Standing Committee by a vote of 4-2.
9:57:42 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:58
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 01 HCR28 Version A.pdf |
HSTA 3/22/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HCR 28 |
| 02 HCR28 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HSTA 3/22/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HCR 28 |
| 03 HCR28 Council DSV 2012 Dashboard Findings.pdf |
HSTA 3/22/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HCR 28 |
| 04 HCR28 2010 Alaska Victimization Survey.pdf |
HSTA 3/22/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HCR 28 |
| 05 HCR 28 HSTA Zero Fiscal Note 3-21-12.pdf |
HSTA 3/22/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HCR 28 |
| 01 HB0347A.pdf |
HSTA 3/22/2012 8:00:00 AM SSTA 4/13/2012 9:00:00 AM |
HB 347 |
| 02 HB 347 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HSTA 3/22/2012 8:00:00 AM SSTA 4/13/2012 9:00:00 AM |
HB 347 |
| 03 HB347 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HSTA 3/22/2012 8:00:00 AM SSTA 4/13/2012 9:00:00 AM |
HB 347 |
| 04 HB347 Legislative Research 3-9-2012.pdf |
HSTA 3/22/2012 8:00:00 AM SSTA 4/13/2012 9:00:00 AM |
HB 347 |
| 05 HB347-DCCED-DCRA-02-24-12.pdf |
HJUD 4/2/2012 1:00:00 PM HSTA 3/22/2012 8:00:00 AM SSTA 4/13/2012 9:00:00 AM |
HB 347 |