Legislature(1995 - 1996)

02/07/1995 08:05 AM STA

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
             HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE                            
                        February 7, 1995                                       
                           8:05 a.m.                                           
 MEMBERS PRESENT                                                               
 Representative Jeannette James, Chair                                         
 Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chair                                         
 Representative Joe Green                                                      
 Representative Ivan Ivan                                                      
 Representative Brian Porter                                                   
 Representative Caren Robinson                                                 
 Representative Ed Willis                                                      
 MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                
 COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                            
 SJR 7:Relating to mandates imposed on states by the federal                  
 PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                     
 *HB 17:"An Act relating to the titles that describe the two                  
 principal executive officers of electric and telephone                        
 PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                     
 *HB 13:"An Act requiring persons authorized to make or incur                 
 political campaign expenditures before filing for                             
 nomination to office and groups acting on behalf of them                      
 to file certain election campaign financial disclosure                        
 PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                     
 *HB 32:"An Act relating to administrative proceedings involving              
 a determination of eligibility for a permanent fund                           
 dividend or authority to claim a dividend on behalf of                        
 HEARD AND HELD                                                              
 HB 44:"An Act providing that a political use is not an                       
 authorized use of charitable gaming proceeds; prohibiting                     
 the contribution of charitable gaming proceeds to                             
 candidates for certain public offices, their campaign                         
 organizations, or to political groups; providing that a                       
 political groups is not a qualified organization for                          
 purposes of charitable gaming; relating to what is a                          
 qualified organization for the purpose of charitable                          
 gaming permitting; and providing for a effective date."                       
 HEARD AND HELD                                                              
 *HB 106:"An Act relating to art in public places requirements and            
 the art in public places fund."                                               
 SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                                     
 HJR 20:Relating to unfunded federal mandates and the Conference              
 of the States.                                                                
 SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                                     
 HJR 4:Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of               
 Alaska authorizing the use of the initiative to amend the                     
 Constitution of the State of Alaska.                                          
 SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                                     
 (*First public hearing)                                                       
 WITNESS REGISTER                                                              
 SENATOR ROBIN TAYLOR                                                          
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 State Capitol, Room 30                                                        
 Juneau, AK 99801                                                              
 Telephone: 465-3873                                                           
 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor statement for SJR 7                      
 JEFF LOGAN, Legislative Assistant                                             
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 State Capitol, Room 24                                                        
 Juneau, AK 99801                                                              
 Telephone: 465-4931                                                           
 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided Sponsor Statement for HB 17                      
 DAVE HUTCHENS                                                                 
 Alaska Rural Electric Cooperative Association                                 
 703 W. Tudor, #200                                                            
 Anchorage, AK 99503                                                           
 Telephone: 907-561-6103                                                       
 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 17                                           
 KAREN BOORMAN, Executive Director                                             
 Alaska Public Offices Commission                                              
 2221 E. Northern Lights, #128                                                 
 Anchorage, AK 99508                                                           
 Telephone: 907-276-4176                                                       
 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information for HB 13                            
 MELINDA GRUENING, Legislative Assistant                                       
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 State Capitol, Room 24                                                        
 Juneau, AK 99801                                                              
 Telephone: 465-4931                                                           
 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided Sponsor Statement for HB 32                      
 TOM WILLIAMS, Director                                                        
 Permanent Fund Division                                                       
 Alaska Department of Revenue                                                  
 PO Box 110460                                                                 
 Juneau, AK  99811                                                             
 Telephone: 465-2323                                                           
 POSITION STATEMENT: Answered Questions on HB 32                               
 REPRESENTATIVE TERRY MARTIN                                                   
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 State Capitol, Room 502                                                       
 Juneau, AK  99801-1182                                                        
 Telephone:  465-3783                                                          
 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided Sponsor Statement for HB 44                      
 REPRESENTATIVE GENE THERRIAULT                                                
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 State Capitol, Room 421                                                       
 Juneau, AK 99801                                                              
 Telephone: 465-4797                                                           
 POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in support of HB 44                                 
 PREVIOUS ACTION                                                               
 BILL:  SJR  7                                                               
 SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S)                                                        
 Leman,Frank,Miller; REPRESENTATIVE(S) Grussendorf,Navarre                     
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                      
 01/16/95        11    (S)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 01/16/95        11    (S)   JUDICIARY                                         
 01/25/95              (S)   JUD AT 01:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211                    
 01/25/95              (S)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 01/26/95        93    (S)   JUD RPT  3DP 2NR                                  
 01/26/95        93    (S)   ZERO FISCAL NOTE (S.JUD)                          
 01/26/95              (S)   RLS AT 12:30 PM FAHRENKAMP ROOM 203               
 01/26/95              (S)   MINUTE(RLS)                                       
 01/27/95       104    (S)   RULES TO CALENDAR  1/27/94                        
 01/27/95       105    (S)   READ THE SECOND TIME                              
 01/27/95       105    (S)   COSPONSOR(S):  PEARCE                             
 01/27/95       105    (S)   THIRD READING 2/1 CALENDAR                        
 02/01/95       129    (S)   READ THE THIRD TIME  SJR 7                        
 02/01/95       130    (S)   RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 1  UNAN CONSENT           
 02/01/95       130    (S)   AM NO  1     FAILED  Y7 N12 E1                    
 02/01/95       131    (S)   AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING                    
 02/01/95       131    (S)   COSPONSOR(S):  LEMAN, FRANK, MILLER               
 02/01/95       131    (S)   PASSED Y18 N1 E1                                  
 02/01/95       134    (S)   TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                
 02/03/95       217    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 02/03/95       217    (H)   STATE AFFAIRS                                     
 02/03/95       243    (H)   CROSS SPONSOR(S): GRUSSENDORF, NAVARRE            
 02/07/95              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 BILL:  HB  17                                                                
 SHORT TITLE: OFFICERS OF UTILITY COOPERATIVES                                 
 SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) GREEN                                           
 JRN-DATE      JRN-PG              ACTION                                      
 01/06/95        25    (H)   PREFILE RELEASED                                  
 01/16/95        25    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 01/16/95        25    (H)   STATE AFFAIRS, LABOR & COMMERCE                   
 02/07/95              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 BILL:  HB  13                                                                
 SHORT TITLE: CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REPORTS                                      
 SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) GREEN,Bunde                                     
 JRN-DATE      JRN-PG              ACTION                                      
 01/06/95        23    (H)   PREFILE RELEASED                                  
 01/16/95        23    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 01/16/95        24    (H)   STA, JUD, FIN                                     
 01/19/95        88    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): BUNDE                               
 02/07/95              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 BILL:  HB  32                                                                
 SHORT TITLE: PFD ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS                                   
 SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) GREEN                                           
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                      
 01/06/95        29    (H)   PREFILE RELEASED                                  
 01/16/95        29    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 01/16/95        29    (H)   STA, JUD, FIN                                     
 02/07/95              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 BILL:  HB  44                                                                
 SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MARTIN,Rokeberg,Porter,Bunde                    
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                      
 01/06/95        32    (H)   PREFILE RELEASED                                  
 01/16/95        32    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 01/16/95        32    (H)   STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY                          
 01/19/95        90    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): BUNDE                               
 01/26/95              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 01/26/95              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                       
 02/07/95              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 BILL:  HB 106                                                                
 SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) VEZEY                                           
 JRN-DATE    JRN-PG                ACTION                                      
 01/20/95       102    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 01/20/95       102    (H)   STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE                            
 02/07/95              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 BILL:  HJR 20                                                                
 SHORT TITLE: CONFERENCE OF THE STATES                                         
 SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) BARNES,Grussendorf,Foster,Mulder                
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                      
 01/23/95       115    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 01/23/95       115    (H)   WTR, STA                                          
 01/31/95              (H)   WTR AT 05:00 PM CAPITOL 408                       
 01/31/95              (H)   MINUTE(WTR)                                       
 02/01/95       195    (H)   WTR RPT  6DP                                      
 02/01/95       195    (H)   DP: PHILLIPS, WILLIAMS, KUBINA                    
 02/01/95       195    (H)   DP: G.DAVIS, MULDER, BARNES                       
 02/01/95       195    (H)   FISCAL NOTE (LAA) 2/1/95                          
 02/01/95       195    (H)   ZERO FISCAL NOTE (GOV) 2/1/95                     
 02/01/95       196    (H)   REFERRED TO STATE AFFAIRS                         
 02/07/95              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 BILL:  HJR  4                                                                
 SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MARTIN,Rokeberg                                 
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                      
 01/06/95        17    (H)   PREFILE RELEASED                                  
 01/16/95        17    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 01/16/95        17    (H)   STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY                          
 01/26/95              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 01/26/95              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                       
 02/07/95              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 ACTION NARRATIVE                                                              
 TAPE 95-10, SIDE A                                                            
 Number 001                                                                    
 CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES called the meeting to order at 8:05 a.m. and            
 announced, for the record, that Representative Gene Therriault was            
 in the audience.                                                              
 HSTA - 02/07/95                                                               
 SJR  7 - OPPOSING FEDERAL MANDATES ON STATES                                
 SENATOR ROBIN TAYLOR read the following sponsor statement on SJR 7:           
 Senate Joint Resolution 7 is virtually identical to                          
 resolutions already passed in Colorado, Hawaii, Missouri,                     
 California, Pennsylvania and Michigan.  Separate resolutions                  
 have been passed by the Senate and House in Illinois, by the                  
 House in Oklahoma and Louisiana and by the Senate in Kentucky.                
 The resolution has been introduced in 12 other states and has                
 sponsors in an additional 20 states.                                          
 SJR 7 is representative of what has become a national                        
 movement, started in the West, to reassert the sovereignty of                 
 the people and the individual states under the Tenth                          
 The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States                 
 is brief and to the point.  It reads: "The powers not                         
 delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor                       
 prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States,                   
 respectively, or to the people."                                              
 Passage of SJR 7 will send a strong, clear message to the                    
 Congress that Alaska is ready to claim her rights under the                   
 Tenth Amendment.  Those rights include the power to choose                    
 whether or not to implement mandates imposed on the states by                 
 a Congress, which fails to recognize the intent of the                        
 Founding Fathers in limiting the powers of the central                        
 Past Legislatures have protested individual mandates in                      
 numerous resolutions, without result.  Passage of SJR 7 will                  
 strengthen the resolve of those members of Congress currently                 
 working to end the tyranny of unfunded and unconstitutional                   
 There will be those who argue that SJR 7 has no force of law                 
 because it is only a resolution.  State Senator Charles Duke,                 
 of Colorado, when he won passage of the first resolution of                   
 this kind, answered that argument eloquently.  He reminded his                
 colleagues, and I quote, Our Declaration of Independence had                  
 no force of law.                                                              
 I ask the committee's support of SJR 7.                                      
 Number 047                                                                    
 CHAIR JAMES said she suggested an amendment and a committee                   
 substitute, which she would discuss with the sponsor.  A copy of              
 the amendment was passed out to members of committee.                         
 REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked Senator Taylor what the status was             
 in the other states that are working this issue.                              
 SENATOR TAYLOR said he couldn't answer that, except it is very                
 positive.  There are many other states apart from those he                    
 mentioned in his opening statement that are working on this same              
 Number 085                                                                    
 CHAIR JAMES read the following amendment to the committee:                    
 WHEREAS the United States Constitution envisions sovereign                   
 states and guarantees the states a republican form of                         
 government; and                                                               
 WHEREAS Alaska and its municipalities are losing their power                 
 to act on behalf of state citizens as the power of government                 
 is moving farther away from the people into the hands of                      
 federal agencies composed of officials who are not elected and                
 who are unaware of the needs of Alaska and the other states;                  
 WHEREAS the federal court system affords a means to liberate                 
 the states from the grips of federal mandates;                                
 FURTHER RESOLVED that the Governor is respectively requested                 
 to examine and challenge by legal action on behalf of the                     
 state, federal mandates contained in court rulings, federal                   
 laws and regulations, or federal practices to the extent to                   
 those mandates infringe on the sovereignty of Alaska or the                   
 state's authority over issues affecting its citizens; and be                  
 FURTHER RESOLVED that Alaska's sister states are urged to                    
 participate in any legal action brought under this resolution.                
 CHAIR JAMES wanted to submit the above amendment to the committee             
 and said she had the CS for SJR 7.  She asked for comments from the           
 sponsor regarding the proposed changes.                                       
 SENATOR TAYLOR did not believe the changes would do any disservice            
 to the legislation.  He said if people feel they are of assistance,           
 then wanted to participate in that also, it was a good idea.                  
 Number 128                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE ED WILLIS asked Senator Taylor how he envisioned               
 this resolution would work, if it were implemented.  Another                  
 question he had was if this resolution included both funded and               
 unfunded mandates.                                                            
 Number 139                                                                    
 SENATOR TAYLOR explained that it is not a question of whether or              
 not money is involved.  The question is not just unfunded mandates.           
 Frequently, those mandates that do not require a specific amount of           
 funding are probably as onerous to us as anything.  There are                 
 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) mandates that set various               
 standards and tell us that we, if we wish to have our Department of           
 Environmental Conservation participate in the game, have to pass              
 higher standards, or that we cannot pass any standard lower than              
 those of the federal government.  That is a mandate on us; for                
 instance, mandating how our garbage dumps work, and it mandates how           
 our water works.  Those mandates are just as offensive as those               
 that require us to spend money on various programs yet they fail to           
 send the money.  This legislation is worded in such a way that it             
 encompasses all mandates:  Funded and unfunded.                               
 Number 173                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN voiced his support for this Senate resolution.           
 Number 191                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS expressed that this is saying that problems             
 are strictly problems of the states.  Some mandates, such as with             
 EPA, were triggered in the past because at the time, they felt                
 compelling needs for the problems to be looked at nationally.                 
 Representative Willis's concern was if this action would preclude             
 the national government from looking at a problem that might have             
 national implications.                                                        
 SENATOR TAYLOR answered that this was not the intent of this                  
 resolution.   There are always going to be matters of national                
 significance that need the attention of the federal government.               
 The problem is that the federal government made a decision to go              
 way beyond what either the Constitution or the forefathers of this            
 country ever intended for the federal government to do.  It is                
 micro-managing almost every aspect of our lives within the state.             
 If the state is going to retain any semblance of state's rights in            
 this constitutional balance, then the people of the state must                
 reassert themselves for that purpose.  The national requirements              
 for defending this nation, the national requirement for providing             
 for ease of transportation and access across state lines, and to              
 make certain that disease and illness are attacked, that education            
 is funded, and that various standards are set, are not perceived as           
 being as local or on a regional basis, so that they would not have            
 a national significance.   He doesn't believe they say that in this           
 resolution.  He believes it speaks loudly about the concerns of               
 whether or not there is any state jurisdiction left.                          
 Number 231                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN brought up the wetlands act as a classic                 
 example of government overreaction.  In a state like Florida where            
 the Everglades are drying up, there is a crisis and there should be           
 a stoppage of continued watering or "de-watering" encroachment into           
 wetlands, but to strike a pen and say that all states will have no            
 net loss of wetlands, it is micro-managing.                                   
 SENATOR TAYLOR said he was in the Florida Everglades about four               
 weeks ago.   For the last five or six years they have used the                
 drying up of the Everglades as a campaign issue and fund raiser.              
 Now because of unusual rains, they are experiencing the highest               
 water level in 42 years, so the people of Florida worry now about             
 the panther and deer populations because they are stuck up on an              
 island and the panthers are eating the deer, and the deer are                 
 starving.  The campaign presentingly is to save the deer and to do            
 something about all that water.                                               
 CHAIR JAMES spoke up about our practice of social engineering,                
 financial engineering, and natures engineering.  She said, "If man            
 believes that they can manipulate nature, they are on an ego trip.            
 There is absolutely no power as strong as nature to destroy or to             
 Number 275                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN said he respects the intent of the                   
 resolution, and he agreed with some of the problems that have been            
 incurred in other parts of Alaska, and the topic of wetlands that             
 has been wrestled with by Alaskans trying to develop resources.               
 However, he wanted to address the amendment submitted by                      
 Representative Ogan, wondering if it is speaking to actions such as           
 the lawsuit recently addressed:  Babbitt v. Alaska.  He asked if            
 this was part of addressing it into the amendment, on lines 15 and            
 CHAIR JAMES said that was not her intention.  This legislation has            
 nothing to do with the Babbitt lawsuit.  It is a different issue              
 altogether.  What it is suggesting is that the Governor examine and           
 challenge the federal government, by legal action, on behalf of the           
 state:  Federal mandates, like the mandatory helmet law.  There are           
 many mandates, particularly in the Department of Transportation               
 (DOT) and if the state does not do what they say, DOT takes away              
 our highway funds.  She believes this is a blackmail clause.                  
 REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN said we need to move that this first                
 amendment be accepted.                                                        
 REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER moved that the committee adopt the CS             
 for SJR 7, Draft C, dated 2/6/95.                                             
 CHAIR JAMES asked if there was any objection to the motion.  There            
 being no objection, she said the motion passed and they would be              
 working from the CS for SJR 7, Draft C.                                       
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN referred to his amendment, which he passed out,           
 and moved to adopt amendment 3, to be added to the CS.  It includes           
 a change on line 1 and line 2 of page 2 on the CS.  It reads:                 
 WHEREAS the powers of the Congress are itemized in Art. I,                   
 Sec.8, of the United States Constitution, and the Congress                    
 should concentrate on carrying out those important duties                     
 while leaving local matters to each of the states to resolve                  
 based upon the unique needs and circumstance of each state;                   
 WHEREAS the management of fish and wildlife resources by the                 
 federal government within the State of Alaska is not                          
 authorized by the United States Constitution and is a gross                   
 abrogation of power reserved to the several states thereunder;                
 Number 360                                                                    
 SENATOR TAYLOR said there are errors in the first paragraph,                  
 because there are more powers than are addressed:  Military powers            
 and other powers.                                                             
 Number 415                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN, after hearing more comments, withdrew his                
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved that the committee pass CS for SJR 7 out           
 of committee, with individual recommendations.  There being no                
 objection, it was so moved.                                                   
 HSTA - 02/07/95                                                               
 HB  17 - OFFICERS OF UTILITY COOPERATIVES                                 
 JEFF LOGAN, Legislative Assistant for Representative Green, sponsor           
 of HB 17, testified on the CS for HB 17, Version C, dated February            
 1, 1995.  This is the version of the bill that he and                         
 Representative Green are asking the committee to adopt and pass out           
 of the committee.  The proposed version of HB 17 is different than            
 the originals.  As the sponsors did research on HB 17, working with           
 the Electrical Utilities and their representatives, they discovered           
 they had other needs that weren't addressed in the original bill.             
 Some of the needs are a result of federal legislation that passed             
 last fall.  They are addressed in sections 1 and 2 of the bill.  In           
 section 3 or 4 there are housekeeping clarifications.  Mr. Logan              
 said that Mr. Dave Hutchens was there from the Rural Utility                  
 Cooperative to testify and to answer questions.   The rest of the             
 bill is a new tack on what was the original language of HB 17.  The           
 change in federal statutes is a consolidation of some of the                  
 financing agencies in the federal government that finance low                 
 interest loans to utilities.  For Alaskan Cooperative Utilities to            
 take advantage of those changes, they need a major change in                  
 statute.  Mr. Logan said that previously, the Rural Electric                  
 Administration (REA) provided low interest loans to electric                  
 cooperatives, to finance very expensive generation transmission               
 equipment, which was necessary to do the work that these people do.           
 The REA has now been combined with a number of other agencies that            
 provided loans for other utilities, and this co-op is called the              
 RUS, or the Rural Utilities Service.                                          
 MR. LOGAN had with him the CS for HB 17.   At the bottom of page 2            
 is the crux of the CS; it is a major change.  It reads:  "Electric            
 cooperatives may now offer services other than electricity, and               
 those services are direct satellite television, sewer and water and           
 gas."   Section 3 of the proposed CS was the crux of the original             
 HB 17, which is AS 10.25.200.  Last year the prime sponsors of this           
 bill also sponsored HB 497, which passed the House, but it did not            
 make it through the Senate.   HB 497 addressed this statute which             
 says, essentially, that the state requires that officers of a                 
 utility board be titled a president, a vice president, a secretary            
 and a treasurer.   The problem is, in business, the presiding offer           
 of the board is not always given the title of president.  A large             
 utility in the state found this problematic, and this bill takes a            
 new tack on it, saying that the state has no business telling a               
 utility what to call their officers.  It simply says "those                   
 officers authorized by the bylaws."   Essentially, what the bill is           
 doing is getting out of telling utilities what to call their                  
 officers.  That is what section 3 states.  The rest of the bill               
 except for section 4 is housekeeping clarifications.  One                     
 housekeeping clarification is to make sure the statute is clear               
 that the bylaws can be changed by a two-thirds vote of those                  
 members present, or voting by mail when it is appropriate, as                 
 opposed to requiring two-thirds of the members of the co-op, which            
 could be a rather unruly election process.                                    
 Number 517                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said that from the way the amendment is                 
 written, in terms of the voting for the co-op, he would interpret             
 it to mean the election has to be one or the other; either the                
 election by vote at a meeting or an election by mail. It could not            
 be both and he wondered if that is what the bill intended.                    
 MR. LOGAN said he did not think that was the sponsor's intention.             
 Number 527                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN, prime sponsor of HB 17, concurred that it was           
 not the intent.  The wording was taken from an article provided by            
 the co-op itself, that a vote counts whether it is by mail or voted           
 at the meeting, and that is what they meant.  He said they would              
 modify the CS to keep with the intent.                                        
 Number 550                                                                    
 CHAIR JAMES asked Representative Porter if the wording were changed           
 to "and/or by mail" if it would fit his criteria.                             
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER thought it would be more prudent to run this            
 by persons who know these things than tinker with it at this                  
 committee table.                                                              
 Number 571                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved that the committee adopt CS for HB 17,            
 version C, dated 2/1/95 as a working draft.   There being no                  
 objection, it was so ordered.                                                 
 CHAIR JAMES asked if anyone on the committee wanted to make a                 
 conceptual amendment to CS HB 17.                                             
 Number 576                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved that the committee adopt a conceptual             
 amendment to request the drafter to reconsider the language of page           
 3, line 22 and other places where this language appears, where is             
 says: "at a meeting or by mail."   The drafter should consider if             
 "at a meeting or by mail" allows a vote of both simultaneously, and           
 if not, to make the appropriate changes.  There being no objection,           
 it was so ordered.                                                            
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked, referring to the original HB 17, if              
 the Alaska Public Utilities Commission (APUC) has direct satellite            
 television within its jurisdiction.  Mr. Logan said that Dave                 
 Hutchens could answer that question.                                          
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if it is a new form of business for these           
 co-ops, adding these new services:  Sewer, water, satellite                   
 television and gas services.                                                  
 CHAIR JAMES said that it is a federal change to allow and encourage           
 these companies to do that.                                                   
 Number 610                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN brought up that some of the utilities,                   
 especially in smaller communities, are being more streamlined.                
 The federal attitude was that the REA or electric co-ops have been            
 so successful that it would be more streamlined and successful if             
 they could allow the local communities to piggyback some other                
 utilities with the structure that they have with the electrical               
 Number 625                                                                    
 DAVE HUTCHENS, Executive Director, Alaska Electric Cooperative                
 Association, said that the association is composed of 18 electric             
 co-ops scattered around the state, and it serves about two-thirds             
 of the people.  Three of those co-ops have celebrated their 50th              
 anniversary.  In late 1986 or 1987, the legislature passed a re-              
 codification of the Electric and Telephone Cooperative Act, AS                
 10.25, and that has served the people well.  In regards to the U.S.           
 Department of Agriculture where changes occurred, the cooperative             
 thought it was time for some modest revisions to this Act.                    
 Regarding the issue of voting that was raised, on page 3, line 22,            
 about voting by mail or at the meeting, he suggested the language             
 could be clarified if they simply reverse the order and put "by               
 mail or at the meeting."                                                      
 Number 653                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said he saw the original bill without the CS              
 and had some concerns to clear up.  He explained that he has                  
 concerns with section 2: "expanding the utilities to other services           
 besides electric or telephone."    His concern is that small                  
 business would have to compete with big business.                             
 MR. HUTCHENS assured Representative Ivan that this is not cable               
 television, but direct satellite broadcasts.  Someone had                     
 questioned if this was something that presently came through the              
 APUC and the answer he gave was "no."  The satellite that brings              
 the service to people across the Lower 48 is not positioned where             
 Alaska can receive data from it.  He mentioned ads on direct                  
 television with a little 18-inch disk:  This is what he has been              
 talking about.  We in Alaska cannot get that service.                         
 TAPE 95-10, SIDE B                                                            
 Number 000                                                                    
 MR. HUTCHENS continued to say that there would be someone selling             
 the direct programming and someone else selling the hardware.  The            
 market for this would not be in the villages where people live                
 compactly to where they could be reached by cable televisions.  The           
 market would be rural parts of the Kenai Peninsula, the Matanuska             
 Valley, the rural areas outside of Fairbanks, and through the                 
 Copper River Valley.                                                          
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked him to address that small villages might           
 want to form their own small co-op.  The point in section 1 is that           
 they have no intention of going into competition with businesses              
 already established in an area.                                               
 Number 087                                                                    
 MR. HUTCHENS assured Representative Ivan that this is not mandatory           
 at all, and the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) does loan money                 
 directly to small municipalities in rural areas.  The reason they             
 want the electric cooperatives to become prepared to be available             
 as backups for the sewer and water business is that the predecessor           
 agencies to RUS have loaned money to a number of small communities            
 that did not have the management system to satisfactorily operate             
 sewer and water systems over the long haul, so they failed or are             
 failing.   They want somebody to be able to step in and provide the           
 management service to keep those systems operating.                           
 Number 127                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said that speaking of past history, we did not            
 have people in management or people capable of financial planning             
 and organizing for business, but now, after 20 years, there is the            
 expertise and capabilities in small communities.  He said it is not           
 just satellite, but gas and services, and those are some of the               
 things they will be looking at to make lives better.                          
 CHAIR JAMES asked how we can address these things when we are                 
 trying to encourage people to do more for themselves, and to make             
 their small businesses work, then we allow big business to come in            
 to do the same things.  Little businesses cannot always compete               
 with big businesses.  This is not a mandate, it is an allowance,              
 but she understands the threat felt by small business, that big               
 businesses will come in and push them out.                                    
 MR. HUTCHENS pointed out that the electric coops are not big                  
 business.   Those serving in the larger communities have become               
 large, but those in the rural areas are quite small, such as                  
 Naknek, King Salmon and North Naknek.  They think there is a local            
 gas supply in the immediate area that is not large enough to                  
 attract oil companies to come in to develop it for export, but                
 would be available for local furnishing of service.  About how to             
 protect people who were there first, to keep other people from                
 coming in on top of them, that is why they made a point in section            
 1, the legislative intent section, to say it is not intended that             
 the cooperative would go into competition with anyone that is                 
 already there.                                                                
 CHAIR JAMES called for a motion to move the bill out of committee.            
 Number 138                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved that the committee pass the CS for HB
 17 as conceptually amended with individual recommendations.  There            
 being no objection, it was so ordered.                                        
 HSTA - 02/07/95                                                               
 HB 13 - CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REPORTS                                         
 Number 156                                                                    
 CHAIR JAMES said the next bill on the agenda is HB 13.                        
 JEFF LOGAN, Legislative Assistant to Representative Joe Green, the            
 prime sponsor of HB 13, gave the sponsor statement.                           
 HB 13 makes it easier for the public to know who is                          
 contributing money to non-party candidates for statewide                      
 Problem:  Currently, non-party candidates for legislative                    
 office who gain access to the general election ballot by going                
 through the petition or write-in process are not required to                  
 file campaign finance disclosure reports during the primary                   
 election cycle.  Alaska Public Office Commission Policy                       
 Decision 15.13-82-2 sets requirements for these candidates.                   
 The commission has ruled that non-party candidates, groups                   
 formed to influence the outcome of ballot issues not appearing                
 on the primary ballot, and political party subdivisions and                   
 multi-candidate PACs which do not make expenditures to benefit                
 a candidate on the primary ballot..."need not file either                     
 primary or general election reports so long as their only                     
 activity during those reporting periods is the receipt of                     
 contributions or the expenditures of funds for administrative                 
 When a campaign-related expenditure is made, the reporting                   
 cycle is triggered.  Until that time, the public has no idea                  
 who is contributing money to non-party candidates.                            
 Solution:  HB 13 requires prospective non-party candidates for               
 legislative office to disclose to the public, during the                      
 primary election reporting cycle, who is making campaign                      
 contributions to them.                                                        
 MR.LOGAN pointed out that HB 13 will eliminate corruption.  Also              
 the bill has a zero fiscal note.                                              
 Number 278                                                                    
 KAREN BOORMAN, Executive Director, Alaska Public Offices                      
 Commission, testified by teleconference that their office has been            
 working with Mr. Logan on HB 13.  The commission supports this CS,            
 and Mr. Logan is correct in saying it would have a zero fiscal note           
 rather than the positive fiscal note that was attached to the                 
 original bill.  The bill would require that those state candidates            
 who become active during the primary election cycle by raising or             
 spending money file a series of reports, as in the primary election           
 cycle, even though they are running on the general election ballot.           
 The commission supports this, having noticed in the last two state            
 elections that this group of people has increased:  In the 1992               
 election there were 11 such candidates, and in 1994 there were 17             
 such candidates.  The change can be attributed to an apportionment            
 where the districts changed; also, the closed primary.                        
 REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON asked why this has not been part of             
 the law in the past.                                                          
 Number 300                                                                    
 MS. BOORMAN answered there have not been that many candidates that            
 ran by nominating petition in this way.  It was the commission's              
 position that if they were not active in the primary election, they           
 did not have to report during that cycle. It is a new and                     
 increasing problem now, that these people are viable candidates,              
 actively raising and spending money.  Before, the commission was              
 trying to avoid unnecessary reports to those small campaigns and              
 groups whose activity was very limited.                                       
 CHAIR JAMES questioned Ms. Boorman about the rule that says that              
 before any candidate can collect or raise funds, they must file an            
 intent to run.                                                                
 MS. BOORMAN said that Chair James was correct, and filing an intent           
 would be an indication that disclosure would be necessary.  She               
 anticipated there would be approximately 20 in any given campaign             
 Number 334                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved they pass CS for HB 13 Version G, dated           
 2/3/95.    Hearing no objection, the motion passed.   Chair James             
 affirmed that the CS for HB 13, Version G would be the working                
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER added that he would support the bill, but               
 there is another bill coming up that might render this piece of               
 legislation unnecessary.                                                      
 CHAIR JAMES said he was speaking of legislation that indicates that           
 the two highest vote getters out of the primary go on to the                  
 general election.   She would take deference to Representative                
 Porter's stand, because it eliminates the people who are without a            
 party from running.                                                           
 Number 360                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS went through that process and said, for the             
 interest of fairness, this is a good piece of legislation.   He               
 thought, as an Independent, that he would have to file, but when he           
 went to file he was told that he didnt have to.  Again, in the                
 interest of fairness, he supported the bill.                                  
 Number 379                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved that the committee move CS HB 13,                 
 Version G, dated 2/3/95 from committee with individual                        
 recommendations and adopt a zero fiscal note.  There being no                 
 objection, CS for House Bill 13 passed out of committee.                      
 HSTA - 02/07/95                                                               
 HB 32 - PFD ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS                                    
 Number 391                                                                    
 MELINDA GRUENING, Legislative Assistant to Representative Joe                 
 Green, the prime sponsor of HB 32, said that because of one of his            
 constituents who had been waiting two years for his Permanent Fund            
 Division (PFD) Representative Green began investigating the                   
 problem.  He thought two years was entirely too long for anyone to            
 wait on appeals.  When he contacted the Permanent Fund Dividend               
 Division, he found out the number of appeals pending were directly            
 related to the high number of appeals filed.  A number of these, he           
 discovered, could be considered frivolous appeals.  HB 32 addresses           
 the problem of the huge number of appeals after a person has been             
 denied a PFD, and the time it takes to file those appeals.                    
 MS. GRUENING commented as of January 1995, there were 9,704 appeals           
 pending.   This is the highest number since the PFD program's                 
 inception.   The statistics received from the Department of Revenue           
 show there are some people who have waited longer than two years.             
 Processing such a large number of appeals is costly, and the time             
 delays are unfair to persons with legitimate claims to appeal.                
 Currently, there are 10 permanent full-time employees in the PFD              
 division, and three appeals officers in the commissioner's office             
 working on processing appeals.  They are reorganizing the appeals             
 officers in the commissioner's office, so there will be one person            
 full time in the commissioner's office.                                       
 MS. GRUENING said part of the problem is that it only costs a 32-             
 cent stamp to file an appeal, so people tend to automatically file            
 an appeal when they are denied.  Many people who are not qualified            
 clearly file for an appeal; some who were out of state, or they               
 missed the deadline.  The denial rate was 64 percent last year, and           
 in previous years the rate has been even higher.  HB 32 would                 
 implement a $25.00 filing fee for individuals protesting the denial           
 of their PFD application.  The department will adopt a regulation             
 that will allow an indigent individual to be exempt from this fee.            
 The filing fee would be refundable if the applicant's appeal is               
 successful, and it would be non-refundable if the denial is not               
 overturned.  It is anticipated that the implementation of a filing            
 fee would discourage clearly unqualified persons from appealing.              
 It would reduce the cost and make the appeals process shorter and             
 more streamlined for those with legitimate claims.  Also, because             
 administrative costs are deducted from each person's PFD check, the           
 positive fiscal note associated would mean a slightly larger check.           
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked why the appeals process takes so                
 Number 456                                                                    
 MS. GRUENING answered it is a three tier process:  An informal                
 appeal process, then the formal appeal process, and then finally,             
 they can appeal to Superior Court.  They have worked on                       
 efficiencies, but there are a large number of appeals and they                
 cannot get caught up.                                                         
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said she was also trying to imagine $25.00            
 coming in and then $25.00 going out, and about who will cut the               
 Number 479                                                                    
 TOM WILLIAMS, Director, Permanent Fund Dividend Division,                     
 Department of Revenue, addressed the appeals process.  Some                   
 individuals are denied a PFD check by their document processing               
 section, based on the information they provide on their                       
 application, if it shows they are clearly ineligible.  They also              
 select other applications for an eligibility determination process            
 by their review staff.  They can issue denials, and they do.  An              
 7individual who has been denied by either process has 60 days to              
 file an informal conference appeal.  It is for someone whose                  
 application has an error and the applicant has an opportunity to              
 say we have the facts wrong.  Then there are the informal                     
 conference levels that determine if they made a right decision;               
 otherwise, they pay the individual.  If the applicant is denied,              
 but they think the department is still wrong, they can request a              
 formal hearing.  They have 30 days to do that.  The formal hearing            
 is conducted before the commissioner's office staff.  The division            
 has people who represent the department's position, and the                   
 individual can represent their position before the formal hearing             
 staff.  The formal hearing staff will issue a decision, either                
 overturning the denial or upholding it.  If the denial is upheld by           
 the informal hearing staff, the individual has 30 days to appeal to           
 the Superior Court, so there is a three tier appeal process.   Most           
 denials that will be overturned are overturned at the informal                
 conference stage.  They are trying to reduce the number of                    
 frivolous appeals.                                                            
 Number 553                                                                    
 CHAIR JAMES asked if they have a calculation based on the volume of           
 appeals, and what the cost is.                                                
 MR. WILLIAMS said they do not have an overall cost.  It varies by             
 the nature of the appeals.  He could get the committee an amount of           
 how much it costs to run the appeal's section.                                
 Number 564                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said this is a good idea, yet she wondered            
 if money going in and out again would be a problem.  This                     
 legislation might solve one problem and create another one.                   
 Number 570                                                                    
 MR. WILLIAMS said that when adding a procedure there are                      
 administrative things that need to be done to implement that.  They           
 have the basic mechanism there to deal with money coming in and               
 going out, so the most significant impact would be the time it                
 would take to do the necessary data processing programming.                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if Mr. Williams thought it would be             
 a benefit, or a good direction to go.  She also asked if they                 
 started making money if it would go to the general fund.                      
 Number 595                                                                    
 MR. WILLIAMS thought it would be "do-able."  It  would reduce the             
 number of appeals they would get, and it would ultimately show a              
 reduction in staff.   Also, any money they made would go to the               
 permanent dividend fund.                                                      
 Number 596                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he assumed that the appeals form                   
 provided for people who disagreed about the denial and informed               
 them clearly about the process involved.  He was skeptical about              
 the odds of them winning their cases.                                         
 Number 603                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS asked if a household was denied payment of              
 the PFD checks, based on the sponsor being denied, if every member            
 of the household would have to pay the $25.00.                                
 MR. WILLIAMS answered, yes.  There are variations of situations,              
 and individual determinations.  If the sponsor qualifies the child            
 will qualify.                                                                 
 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN had a question of Ms. Gruening.  He asked what            
 the definition is for indigent.                                               
 Number 622                                                                    
 MS. GRUENING said she spoke to Vince Usera in the Department of Law           
 who said it would be the same criteria that are used for                      
 determining indigent status for the court system.                             
 REPRESENTATIVE IVANS concern was for the constituents in his                  
 district who cannot speak or read the English language.  He needed            
 to know what the impact would be on people such as them, including            
 the dollar amount involved.                                                   
 Number 633                                                                    
 CHAIR JAMES said what "indigent" means is that they don't have any            
 money to pay.  The person is not financially able to pay the                  
 $25.00.  There are other reasons a person might not be able to pay            
 a fee that would not indicate the person is indigent.                         
 Number 654                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN suggested amending the bill with language                 
 similar to that in the application to get a hunting license.  When            
 a person cannot afford to pay for the license, the criteria are               
 simple.  If a person's income is less than a designated amount they           
 can sign an affidavit and get the hunting license.                            
 Number 664                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN suggested that we modify the bill, which now             
 reads "indigent."   The committee could modify that, replacing                
 indigent with a dollar amount, like $2,000 a year, if that would be           
 the desire of the committee.                                                  
 Number 667                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER suggested that the wording merely include               
 "indigent, as defined in a designated state statute."                         
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON stated that if HB 70 was passed, it will              
 take out anyone in the military who is on food stamps, or a person            
 who is sick and on food stamps, or anyone on welfare who is on food           
 stamps, so very few people will even qualify for this.                        
 Number 675                                                                    
 MS. GRUENING passed on to the committee that Vince Usera in the               
 Department of Law said that the court is determined that this                 
 should be handled by regulation, not by law.   She said they could            
 find what the criteria are, and it could be written into the bill,            
 if that is the wish of the committee.                                         
 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said he would like to request a definition of             
 the word, "indigent" and what impact it would have on the people in           
 that category.                                                                
 Number  682                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said the issue of importance is whether it is            
 the will committee to use the word "indigent" and then define the             
 word in the bill, or not to use "indigent" and put in a dollar                
 Number 685                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said she would like to know how "indigent"            
 is defined in other areas, so that the committee is consistent.               
 Number 687                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN moved that the committee adopt the proposed               
 amendment and word it similarly to the hunting license criteria.              
 CHAIR JAMES said that since we did not have a copy of the                     
 regulations about getting a hunting license, she would have to say            
 that motion was not in order.                                                 
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER suggested that we hold the bill over and                
 research what the criteria are for getting a hunting license.  If             
 it is a straightforward position, then we may see if that is                  
 appropriate for HB 32.                                                        
 TAPE 95-11, SIDE A                                                            
 Number 000                                                                    
 CHAIR JAMES also felt that since the committee was not in consensus           
 on this issue, there needed to be a change in the language of the             
 MS. GRUENING asked exactly what it was the committee wished for her           
 to research.                                                                  
 CHAIR JAMES answered that she should look in other areas to see               
 what people are exempt from paying certain fees because they don't            
 have any money, then bring it forward to committee to see what                
 options they have.  If "indigent" is the only option, then they               
 will need to know what it means so they can relate it to specific             
 people in their districts.  She said they would hold the bill over            
 until the next meeting on Thursday, February 9, and put it under              
 previously heard bills on the agenda.                                         
 HSTA - 02/07/95                                                               
 HB 44 - GAMING PROCEEDS/DEFINE CHARITABLE ORGNS                             
 Number 043                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE TERRY MARTIN brought forth to the committee HB 44              
 with his sponsor statement.   The sponsor statement reads:                    
 In August of 1994 before the Primary Election, the Anchorage                
 Daily News published an information article disclosing where                 
 candidates for the governorship were receiving their financial                
 support.  Lawyers became very prominent, as did construction                  
 and the oil industries, as well as the fishing industry who                   
 flapped its wings to get candidates' attention.  Five days                    
 later the Voice of the Times brought into focus two other                   
 major players who financed political campaigns - unions and                   
 state employee groups.                                                        
 Both articles missed the real Motherload.  The newest, most                  
 prolific motherload to fill Alaska's campaign coffer is                       
 Gam(bl)ing - or more specifically, pull-tab permits.  Alaska                  
 is the only state that allows political parties and local                     
 political districts to maintain gambling permits while also                   
 allowing a limitless contributory ability from political units                
 and pull-tab permitees to candidates.  The lack of restriction                
 on gambling dollars directed to political campaigns has given                 
 those in control over permits an incalculable influence and                   
 control over elected officials who are beholden to them for                   
 special voting and political generosity.  The process is one                  
 in which the operators and political district officers decide                 
 who will receive the largest gambling receipts, thus gaining                  
 the highest level of control.  The operators of the permits                   
 can and do use the political permits at the most profitable                   
 places and at the most prolific times, while the true                         
 charitable permitees suffer accordingly.                                      
 There should be an outcry of public disdain for this practice                
 in Alaska, but it will not be heard until the facts of                        
 gambling's influence are exposed.  The gurus of ethics who,                   
 for the last ten years have been shouting the virtues of                      
 reform of special interest in political campaigns, have                       
 developed a scam of the worst kind.  It involves political                    
 parties posing as charitable organizations in the name of                     
 reform.   What we have seen guised as a "charity," is nothing                 
 less than raw political abuse of influence peddling and powers                
 to corrupt the minds of the innocent for personal gains.  This                
 misuse of charity is no longer to be concealed.  Rather it                    
 should be brought to bear before the public, in its true form,                
 as an instrument of power that attracts the greed of elected                  
 Since the passage of legislation orchestrated through several                
 Spenard lawyer/legislators and gam(bl)ing operators that                      
 legalized pull-tabs and licensing (monopolizing) operators                    
 under the guise of "reform", we see the industry's growth                     
 escalate from an annual gross revenue of $60 million in 1988                  
 to over $227 million in 1993.                                                 
 When zeroing in on just political permits we see a phenomenal                
 growth of gross revenues in 1989 of $874,958 to $3,978,179 in                 
 1993.  There are 13 Democrat organizations, 5 Republican units                
 and the Alaska Independence Party that have pull-tab permits.                 
 Labor organizations also depend on gam(bl)ing activities,                    
 especially pull-tabs, to fuel their political machinery.                      
 During 1993, 21 labor unions received $4,269,972 in gross                     
 revenues through their permits.  By holding gaming permits,                   
 politicians, political parties and precincts strip millions of                
 dollars away from the true charities.                                         
 True charities have a purpose in that they assist those who                  
 require aid, whether by training to work, or by clothing and                  
 feeding.  The gaming process in-turn reduces state                            
 expenditures and services.  Those who own gaming permits for                  
 reasons other than charity control the distribution to                        
 political groups and candidates, and end up controlling the                   
 legislature in a more sinister way than true advocates of                     
 ideologies in a democratic-representative government.  This                   
 new motherload that fills political coffers must be                           
 eliminated.  As evident by the 1994 primary and general                       
 elections, the amount of political contributions and proceeds                 
 originating from charitable gaming (pull-tab) receipts                        
 distributed to Alaskan political candidates is overwhelming.                  
 House Bill 44 is the vehicle through which to change this                     
 problem.  I urge your support.                                                
 REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN believes that politics must be taken out of             
 gaming.  Political groups should not be considered charities.  He             
 would like to go back to the IRS to define "charity."                         
 Number 211                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS asked Representative Martin who would be                
 eliminated under this bill.  He wanted to know what the                       
 ramifications would be?                                                       
 REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN said he couldn't tell him what the full                 
 ramifications would be, but his intent is simply to get political             
 groups out of gaming.  The labor groups are the main ones that                
 create the most problems.  Last year there were 19 political groups           
 that signed up for political pull tabs, and it is increasing.  In             
 Valdez there was $52,000 raised for payout to political groups.               
 True charities are those who do not use money for candidates.                 
 Twenty-one unions had permits for the year 1993.                              
 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS asked just what groups would be eliminated.             
 He wondered if the Elks, Lions and American Legion were involved in           
 CHAIR JAMES said, to clarify this issue, that by tying this into              
 the 501-C3 regulations, by who is entitled to get tax exempt status           
 as a nonprofit corporation with Internal Revenue Service for tax              
 purposes, the one prerequisite is that the corporation must not be            
 involved in affecting legislation or political issues.                        
 REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN said there is an expansion on that, Section             
 B, F, and G, that need to be put in the amendment, to cover                   
 organizations such as the American Legion and VFW.                            
 CHAIR JAMES said it would be necessary to carry HB 44 to the next             
 meeting.  She also wanted to hear HB 49 because it pertained to the           
 same thing, gambling proceeds.                                                
 REPRESENTATIVE GENE THERRIAULT said that his bill, HB 49, is                  
 identical to Representative Martin's except for certain nonprofits.           
 He supports Representative Martin's bill, which is intended to                
 tighten up the rules on using money from pull-tabs and other gaming           
 proceeds for political candidates.  Also, people play pull-tabs               
 without knowing what they are supporting.                                     
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said there was a bill passed to determine             
 where the money goes from pull-tabs, and she wondered if this bill            
 affects raffles at schools, clubs and other nonprofit                         
 organizations.  Political parties use raffles, both Republicans and           
 Democrats, and she sees nothing wrong with that.                              
 REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN said most people don't care where their money           
 comes from, but he is trying to take politics out of it.                      
 Number 469                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT said that when people chose to play pull-           
 tabs, it is time driven.  It is okay to get scholarship funds with            
 raffles and pull-tabs.   His bill, HB 49, does not include raffles.           
 CHAIR JAMES held HB 44 over to the next meeting and the meeting               
 adjourned at 10:10 a.m.                                                       

Document Name Date/Time Subjects