Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/09/1995 08:05 AM STA
* first hearing in first committee of referral
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE STANDING COMMITTEE ON STATE AFFAIRS February 9, 1995 8:05 a.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Jeannette James Representative Brian Porter Representative Joe Green Representative Ivan Representative Caren Robinson Representative Ed Willis Representative Scott Ogan MEMBERS ABSENT None COMMITTEE CALENDAR 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 another." PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE 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 group 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 an effective date." HEARD AND HELD * HB 38:"An Act relating to criminal sentencing; relating to the availability for good time credit for offenders convicted of certain first degree murders; relating to mandatory life imprisonment, parole, good time credit, pardon, commutation of sentence, modification or reduction of sentence, reprieve, furlough, and service of sentence at a correctional restitution center for offenders with at least three serious felony convictions; and amending Alaska Rule of Criminal Procedure 35." PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE HB 106:"An Act relating to art in public places requirements and the art in public places fund." PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE HJR 20:Relating to unfunded federal mandates and the Conference of the States. SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD * HB 30:"An Act relating to a dress code for public schools." SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD * HB 132:"An Act repealing the ability of persons seeking an elective state executive office or a state or national legislative office to petition for inclusion of their names on the state general election ballot; requiring candidates of all political groups for a state or national legislative office to compete at the state primary election for the placement on the general election ballot of the name of the one candidate from each political group that receives the greatest number of votes cast; and requiring candidates of all political groups for state executive office to compete at the state primary election for the placement on the general election ballot of the name of the one candidate for governor from each political group that receives the greatest number of votes cast and the name of the one candidate for lieutenant governor from the same political group that receives the greatest number of votes cast." SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD * HB 90:"An Act changing the date that the legislature convenes in the years following a gubernatorial election." 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 MELINDA GRUENING, Legislative Assistant Representative Joe Green Alaska State Legislature State Capitol, Room 24 Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182 Telephone: 465-4931 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor statement for HB 32 TOM ANDERSON, Legislative Assistant Representative Terry Martin Alaska State Legislature State Capitol, Room 502 Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182 Telephone: 465-3783 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor statement for HB 44 REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE Alaska State Legislature State Capitol, Room 108 Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182 Telephone: 465-4843 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor statement for HB 38 MARGARET BERCK, Attorney Alaska American Civil Liberties Union 227 7th Street Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182 Telephone: 586-3309 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 38 JERRY SHRINER, Special Assistant to the Commissioner Department of Corrections 240 Main Street, Suite 700 Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182 Telephone: 465-4640 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 38 REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY Alaska State Legislature State Capitol, Room 219 Telephone: 465-3719 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor statement for HB 106 TIM WILSON, Executive Director Alaska State Council on the Arts 411 W. 4th Ave. Suite IE Anchorage, Alaska, 99501 Telephone: 269-6610 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 106 NATALIE ROTHAUS, Executive Director Juneau Arts Council P.O. Box 20562 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Telephone: 586-2787 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 106 CHARLES ROHRBACHER, Artist 109 Troy Street Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: 586-9774 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 106 PREVIOUS ACTION 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 02/07/95 (H) MINUTE(STA) 02/09/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102 BILL: HB 44 SHORT TITLE: GAMING PROCEEDS/DEFINE CHARITABLE ORG'NS 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 02/07/95 (H) MINUTE(STA) 02/09/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102 BILL: HB 38 SHORT TITLE: SENTENCING;3RD SERIOUS FELONY OFFENDER SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) BUNDE,Toohey JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 01/06/95 30 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 01/16/95 30 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 01/16/95 30 (H) STA, JUD, FIN 01/20/95 105 (H) COSPONSOR(S): TOOHEY 02/09/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102 BILL: HB 106 SHORT TITLE: REPEAL ART IN PUBLIC PLACES REQUIREMENT 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 02/07/95 (H) MINUTE(STA) 02/09/95 (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 02/07/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102 02/07/95 (H) MINUTE(STA) 02/09/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102 BILL: HB 30 SHORT TITLE: SCHOOL DRESS CODES SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) B.DAVIS JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 01/06/95 28 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 01/16/95 28 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 01/16/95 28 (H) STA, HES 02/09/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102 BILL: HB 132 SHORT TITLE: CANDIDATES FOR STATEWIDE BALLOT SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MACKIE,Phillips JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 01/27/95 157 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 01/27/95 158 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE 02/09/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102 BILL: HB 90 SHORT TITLE: CONVENING LEGISLATURE AFTER GOV ELECTION SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) B.DAVIS, Foster, MacLean, Mackie, Nicholia, Elton, Finkelstein, Robinson, Davies, Kubina, James, Toohey JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 01/17/95 51 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 01/17/95 52 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY 01/27/95 163 (H) COSPONSOR(S): FOSTER, MACLEAN 01/30/95 180 (H) COSPONSOR(S): MACKIE, NICHOLIA 01/30/95 180 (H) COSPONSOR(S): ELTON, FINKELSTEIN 02/01/95 210 (H) COSPONSOR(S): ROBINSON, DAVIES 02/01/95 210 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KUBINA, JAMES 02/03/95 242 (H) COSPONSOR(S): TOOHEY 02/09/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102 BILL: HJR 4 SHORT TITLE: USE OF INITIATIVE TO AMEND CONSTITUTION 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 02/07/95 (H) MINUTE(STA) 02/09/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102 ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 95-12, SIDE A Number 000 The meeting of the House State Affairs Standing Committee was called to order by Chair Jeannette James at 8:05 a.m. Members present at the call to order were Representatives James, Ogan, Willis, Robinson, Ivan, Porter, and Green. No members were absent. CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES announced there was a quorum present and a full audience. She stated the first item on the agenda was HB 32 continued from the last meeting. She called for Melinda Gruening to testify on behalf of the sponsor. HSTA - 02/09/95 HB 32 - PFD ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS MELINDA GRUENING, Legislative Assistant to Representative Joe Green, announced that she would be speaking on the changes incorporated in the proposed committee substitute for HB 32. These changes would address concerns expressed by members of the committee about how a person would be determined indigent for purposes of having the proposed permanent fund appeal fee waived. She mentioned that the committee had copies of a memo, which contained wording defining "indigent" for the purposes of fee waiver. She said permanent fund administrators indicated that the criteria for determining indigency needed to be simple, nonsubjective and easily verifiable. She said she researched several agencies to determine how they determined indigency for purposes of fee waver. She said she had talked to the public defenders office, the hunting licensing people, and limited entry people to see how they qualified people for reduced fees or fee waiver. She said the solution that seemed to be the most workable was to use the federal poverty guidelines. These guidelines are published once a year by the U.S. Department of Health and Social Services and the figures are used by a variety of federal agencies and the court system. She explained that the applicants income can be easily verified by a copy of the first page of their previous years tax return. She stated the federal poverty guidelines are adjusted annually for inflation proofing and they do have a separate chart in the guidelines for Alaska to take into account the higher cost of living. She said other than the new subsection (2), the bill was completely unchanged. CHAIR JAMES asked if there was any questions of the sponsor. Number 065 REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN asked if Ms. Gruening could tell the committee exactly what the guidelines would be. MS. GRUENING replied that a copy of these guidelines were enclosed in their packets. She said the enclosed copy was for 1994. She said the new copies for 1995 come out next week in mid-February. CHAIR JAMES asked if there were any other questions or comments. As there were none, she called for a motion with regard to this bill. REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER moved to pass the proposed amendment to HB 32, as described in the memo dated February 9, 1995, signed by Representative Joe Green, adding Section 2 to HB 32. CHAIR JAMES asked if there were any objections. Hearing none, the amendment passed. She asked if there was a motion to pass this bill out of committee. Number 100 REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON moved to pass the committee substitute for HB 32 out of committee with individual recommendations as amended. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated he wished all of the bills had a negative fiscal note like HB 32, except that they applied to the general fund and not the permanent fund. CHAIR JAMES stated the bill needed to be passed with the attached fiscal notes. She asked if there were any objections. As there were none, the bill passed. She announced the next item on the agenda was HB 44. She mentioned there was a representative speaker from Representative Martin's office, the bill's sponsor. HSTA - 02/09/95 HB 44 - GAMING PROCEEDS/ DEFINE CHARITABLE ORG'NS Number 119 TOM ANDERSON, Legislative Assistant to Representative Terry Martin, stated he was there to speak on HB 44 as a representative of Representative Terry Martin. He said he wanted to pass out copies of an information sheet that referenced portions of the bill. He said this was the Internal Revenue Service's 501C listing of tax exempt nonprofit corporations. He mentioned there was debate at the previous meeting concerning Representative Martin's intention of excluding all other categories of IRS nonprofits on this list, other than the 501C3 category. This is the category covering religious, educational, charitable, literary and several groups. He mentioned that Representative Willis had expressed concerns about excluding unions from being able to obtain gaming permits. It was Representative Martin's preference to include only those groups listed under the 501C3 category. He had also expanded his bill to allow 501C10 organizations, 501C19 groups, and possibly the category of 501C23. Thus, Representative Martin was willing to include an amendment to include these additional categories, but would prefer to not expand beyond these groups. He said the intent of this bill was to try to get politics out of "charitable gaming." They were also trying to analyze who can get gaming permits and who can't. Representative Martin felt that if the idea was to try to support charitable organizations, why should a union be allowed to have a permit or cemetery companies? He thought it was better to specify those types of organizations considered a charity. CHAIR JAMES asked if there were any questions or comments for the sponsor. Number 189 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said she had at the last meeting, asked if raffles were included in this bill. She said she was told that they weren't, and then when she talked to Legal, they informed her that raffles were included. She stated she did not know what was wrong with political groups doing a raffle. She argued that people who participate in a raffle know what they are buying and who they are supporting. MR. ANDERSON agreed that raffles were presently included in the bill, but this could be amended if this was the wish of the committee. He said when they drafted the bill, that they were trying to focus on the gaming idea, and realized later that they had included things such as raffles. Number 206 CHAIR JAMES asked if this bill would preclude these people from having gaming permits, or if they were just saying they could not use the proceeds for political purposes. MR. ANDERSON said the way the bill was written presently, it said that these people could not have gaming permits. This bill says no one can have them except 501C3 organizations. The bill is excluding a lot of groups as a result of a miscommunication with Legal Services. He stated they were proposing to include the other listed 501 categories and would consider exempting raffles. He further stated they were trying to make the bill more definitive by saying that just bingo and pull-tabs would be included. He said they were actually attempting to do two different things with this bill, to prevent gaming proceeds from going to political groups and to define who should qualify for a charitable gaming permit. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON stated this was why she felt the committee didn't have all of the information. She said she still did not know all of the groups that would be affected by this bill. She said she thought it was a mistake to include attempts to exclude political groups from the proceeds of charitable gaming and attempts to define who should have a gaming permit in the same bill. She said it seemed that in some ways we had politics involved in this bill, instead of really looking at the issue at hand. She further stated that at the last meeting it was mentioned that individuals did not know who they were supporting with gaming proceeds, when last year a law was passed that required vendors to post a sign saying who the proceeds were going to, and so this was not true. She said she was still trying to figure out where they were trying to go with this bill. Number 247 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he thought this was a reasonable effort to try and get gaming proceeds out of politics, without an entire election reform bill. He said he thought that what this bill needed was for the committee to come to a conclusion on who it is they want to have the ability to have permits for bingo and pull-tabs, the most favored type of gambling in Alaska. He mentioned he was under the impression that raffles were not included in this bill and that could be fixed very easily. He stated the reason the committee should consider trying to limit the types of organizations that can participate in charitable gaming is that the Act was originally intended to support charitable organizations only. This was why, he said, it was called charitable gaming and not credit union gaming or union gaming. He stated the problem with saying that everyone could have a gaming permit, but just to not allow the proceeds to go into politics, is the accounting nightmare of trying to figure out which proceeds came from gaming and where they were spent, as opposed to where their other revenues were spent. He thought it would be much simpler to only expend the resources necessary to insure that gaming proceeds go to charities, as originally intended, rather than expecting the Division of Gaming to try and audit where the proceeds from gaming were being spent. Number 287 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN was concerned that this bill was too broad and was excluding organizations in his area that were intended for charitable purposes. CHAIR JAMES said she wanted to assign this bill to a subcommittee to work out the details. She asked for Representatives Porter, Ivan, and Robinson to sit on this committee and to work this bill with Representative Martin's office. She also asked that they contact Representative Gene Therriault's office, as he had submitted a similar bill. She asked Representative Porter to chair the subcommittee. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if in the subcommittee there would be greater leeway for interpretation of this bill. She didn't know if it was better for the sponsor to do this, but she wanted to know the fiscal impact of this bill for the state. She thought there were a lot of groups that were going to be affected by this bill, that were not necessarily 501C3 organizations, but could be considered charitable groups. Thus, she wanted a clear list of all organizations that would be affected by this bill. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he could alleviate any concerns about the fiscal impact of this bill. He said the Division of Gaming brings in about $1.4 million and spends about $350,000. MR. ANDERSON reiterated that the idea of this bill was to limit who would be eligible for a gaming permit and to ban all political activities and groups from benefitting from the proceeds of charitable gaming. He said they had program receipts and documentation, which they had not yet presented to the committee, that backed up how much money was going to political organizations. CHAIR JAMES stated she thought the goal of this exercise was to eliminate any gaming or gambling from being used for political reasons. Number 335 REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked if the mission of the subcommittee was to study not just who owns the permit, but who the operators were. He was concerned that with inflated operating costs, there might still be a large sum of revenue from gaming diverted to political purposes. CHAIR JAMES said she thought every cent that came into a permit as a result of selling or collecting from this activity, that none of these funds should be allowed to go to supporting political activities. She said it should not matter whether the funds came from the owner of the permit or the operator, as she understood the intent of the bill sponsor. Number 360 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON wanted to point out that this bill could affect organizations who only had gaming money available for funding political education and advocacy activities. She emphasized that she thought the intent of this bill was to insure that gaming proceeds did not go to support political candidates; not necessarily to prevent a citizens group from raising revenue and then be able to educate the legislature on issues that were important to them. Now she thinks that she is hearing otherwise. CHAIR JAMES answered she thought the intent was to limit gaming proceeds from being used for advocacy. She said the idea behind this was that these groups should raise their own funds, without depending on a gimmick to trick people into giving them the money, to support something they may or may not consent to. She said to allow that, was to allow these organizations to, in effect, prey on the people. She stated that because there was extensive conversation needed on this bill, she would prefer they hold any other discussion until they heard the report of the subcommittee. She also asked that the subcommittee keep her informed of the schedule of their meetings, as she wanted to participate. She also urged the subcommittee to speak to their peers, so they could try and get a well rounded bill coming out of committee. Number 386 REPRESENTATIVE ED WILLIS stated this bill just seemed to be getting broader and broader. He said he was wondering, that because the Governor had just appointed a commission to study the gaming issue, if it might not be better for the subcommittee to work with this commission or possibly wait for their recommendations. He said not only was there this bill, but also several other gambling issues before the legislature this session. He thought maybe the Governor's commission should study all of these issues and come back with a recommendation. CHAIR JAMES said she could understand his concerns, but his very own testimony spelled out the underlying problem, which was that the legislature had allowed charitable gaming in this state and that proceeds from this activity were supporting political causes. She felt this was the underlying problem and how they decided to fix it, was the decision of this legislature. She said they could not wait for the commission to find a solution because there had been a lot of commissions and their advice was not always followed. Thus, she thought that to wait for their decision could be a long process, which might not amount to anything, and she would just prefer to keep this bill moving through the process. MR. ANDERSON added that in Representative Martin's view, that commission was extremely deficient in its whole representation of the gaming industry, in that it was made up almost entirely of gaming operators and had little representation from the charitable organizations. He said the commission was very lopsided. CHAIR JAMES stated she felt there was no reason to belabor the issue now until they heard the recommendations of the subcommittee. She requested Representative Porter to chair the subcommittee. She said they would be moving down the agenda to HB 38, as the sponsors for the other two bills had not yet arrived. She called for Representative Con Bunde to come up and testify as the bill sponsor. HSTA - 02/09/95 HB 38 - SENTENCING; 3RD SERIOUS FELONY OFFENDER Number 438 REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE stated he and his aide had worked on this issue for the past three years and he had a sponsor statement that he would pass out to the committee. WALT WILCOX, Committee Aide for State Affairs, announced that the public defender was on teleconference from Anchorage and asked her to identify herself. BARBARA BRINK announced that she was the Deputy Public Defender in Anchorage. She asked if she would have the opportunity to make any comments. MR. WILCOX verified that she would. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated that HB 38 provided for a mandatory 99-year sentence for a specific group of offenders, who have two separate prior Class A or unclassified felony convictions. He said it was called popularly the "Three Strikes" bill, but that had such negative connotations in other states, whose bills were not as carefully drafted, that he would prefer to call it the habitual offender bill. Under this proposed legislation, discretionary parole and good time sentence reductions are not available to offenders who are sentenced to a 99-year term. However, HB 38 does allow the court to reduce a sentence after 50 years have been served, the rationale being that someone that is in for a third felony conviction is probably in their thirties or forties, and by the time they are sixty or seventy years old, they are probably no longer a threat to society. They become very expensive for the state to house and it is frankly good business to allow them to petition to be released at the Governor's discretion. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE explained that this bill also includes some prosecutorial discretion and flexibility, so that either normal presumptive sentencing can take place, or in a case of weak circumstantial evidence, we can avoid the kinds of things that we hear about, where someone is a lifetime career criminal and then they steal a piece of pizza and are locked up for life as their third offense. He mentioned that he knew there were costs associated with incarcerating someone for 99 years, but this bill was crafted to keep that cost to a minimum. He thought it would actually save the state money in the long run. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE argued that strong punishment does help to shape behavior and deter crime, and that although it was certainly a goal of the state to rehabilitate people, that some who have proven with a lifetime of crime, that they were beyond or incapable of being rehabilitated. He said there was little left for the legislature to do, except to protect society from these predators who continue to create more victims. He claimed research has shown that the recidivism rate is 65 to 70 percent and it appears that only 5 to 6 people a year would fall under the effect of this legislation. He said there is not a large population of these types of criminals, but there is a significant core of these types of predators. He said these offenders are taking up costly time in the judicial system, to say nothing of the costs to their victims. He felt that if the revolving door of justice was stopped, these types of crimes would decrease. He said we had too many repeat offenders, depending on the goodwill of the people of Alaska. He said that HB 38 would make Alaska a safer place. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked to read a few things into the record from the packets that the committee had received from a group called Crime Strike, a division of the National Rifle Association. He said he wanted to emphasize that Alaska was not immune to the crime wave spreading across our nation, that a woman was raped every 15 hours, someone was robbed every 13 hours, and that in fact, a violent crime was committed in Alaska every 2 hours and 15 minutes. He added they suggested that passage of this bill would help to alleviate the effects of crime on the citizens of Alaska by locking up these incorrigible criminals for life. He further stated that repeat offenders are a serious threat to public safety, according to the National Center for Policy Analysis, the average criminal commits between 187-287 crimes per year. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said with the passage of this bill, the threat to the public will be substantially reduced by taking these repeat offenders off the street. He pointed out an accompanying chart which showed that when Alaska's level of incarceration went up, its level of crime went down. He pointed to California as a state that had experience with this type of legislation, and showed statistics which documented that their rate of violent crime went down 7 percent in the first 6 months their bill was in effect. Homicides and robbery were both down 11 percent. He said that the National Center for Policy Analysis reported that it costs taxpayers about $25,000 a year to incarcerate criminals, a nationwide average that Alaska does not achieve unless we send our prisoners outside. He said if the criminal was out on the street committing 187-287 crimes a year, the average cost to society was about $2,300 per crime. Added together, one career criminal could cost Alaska $430,000 annually. He stated California has figured that their "Three Strikes" legislation has saved taxpayers $29.5 billion over 5 years. He said he would be willing to answer any questions. CHAIR JAMES stated she noticed that in fiscal year 1996, there was a note of almost $5 million in contractual fees that doesn't show up afterwards. She also noticed the fiscal note showed that this bill would put an additional 202 prisoners in jail over a period of time. She asked if Representative Bunde could explain the fiscal note and its accuracy. Number 571 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated he had some serious disagreements with the attached fiscal note for HB 38. He said he would point out that they are dramatically larger than the fiscal notes received last year on the same bill. He thought the logic behind this fiscal note had its problems. He stated he would ask the committee to focus on the philosophy of this bill, as he was still gathering information to refute this fiscal note. He said he would like the opportunity to do that in the Finance Committee. He mentioned that he thought the large fiscal note may stem from those who are philosophically opposed to this bill, or there may be some errors in calculation. He said that as he pointed out, there should only be 3 to 5 people incarcerated each year, and there should be zero fiscal impact for the next 10-12 years, because if someone is convicted under this bill, as it would be their third felony conviction, they would be incarcerated for that long under current statute. He thought there were some weaknesses in the calculations for this current fiscal note, and he would like to argue that point after he had finished gathering his information. Number 585 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated he was appalled that so few people are responsible for so many crimes. He questioned if the recidivism statistics showed that after someone was caught twice committing a crime, if they became more clever, and so committed a proportionately larger number of crimes before being caught the third time. He said he was concerned there might be a larger number of people out there with two convictions on their record, who might be close to getting convicted under this bill. He stated though, he thought this was a good use of general funds, because as a criminal got more experienced, he figured they committed many more crimes before getting caught the third time. Thus, he figured the cuts to crime will actually be better than the statistics document. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE agreed, saying he found it appalling that the average criminal commits 200 crimes a year. He commented that equalled almost one crime a day and that was rather busy. He said he could alleviate any concerns that there was this huge population of criminals that would be impacted by this legislation, and pointed out that only unclassified and Class A felonies would fall under this bill. To give an example, he said the type of criminal that would be affected by this would be first-degree murderers, kidnappers, first-degree sexual assault cases, first-degree sexual abuse of a minor, and similar cases. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if there wasn't a different mind set between the hardened criminal who would commit these types of crimes, and the smaller petty criminal, such as the petty thief. Number 628 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated he had spent a good part of his life trying to figure that out and came to the conclusion that all of them are different. CHAIR JAMES asked Barbara Brink, the public defender, if she had any comments or questions. Number 635 BARBARA BRINK, Public Defender testified via teleconference from Anchorage and said she had been a public defender in Alaska for 13 years and wanted to share her perspective as to how this bill would affect them. She said this bill would cause increased litigation for the public defender's office in three ways: 1) An individual charged with a third felony, will more likely exercise their right to trial, as opposed to pleading out; 2) she said there would have to be a more extensive look at the two prior convictions to make sure that they are constitutionally valid; and 3) a person charged with a conviction will be more likely to take their case to trial instead of pleading out, as they will not want even the first conviction on their record for fear that it will count towards their allowed total of three convictions. She argued that today, 94 percent of their felony cases do not go to trial, but are pleaded out short of trial. She feared that with this bill, the existing system would collapse on itself because of the increased workload. She said there was dispute as to how many cases this bill would affect. She stated the Criminal Justice Working Group, made up of representatives from all of the criminal justice agencies, believed that prosecution of 10-30 defendants will occur each year. While developing this fiscal note, they had picked 15 cases a year as a fair representation of the projected number that this bill would affect. She said even this small number would consume weeks for the court system. She pointed out that in California, after they passed their "Three Strikes" law, the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office had to shut down numerous departments dealing with environmental law and fraud, to deal with the increased workload from the "Three Strikes" cases. She added the California Judicial Council projected that this law would amount to an extra 17,000 jury trials per year. She also said that many of the civil judges in California had been taken off of the civil bench and reassigned to criminal cases. She thought this was an important lesson for us to learn of the far reaching consequences of this legislation. She said that figures from the FBI and the Bureau of Justice Statistics showed there had not been growth in the overall crime rate over the last two decades. She said the rate of violent crime had actually dropped 22 percent between 1980 and 1992. TAPE 95-12, SIDE B Number 000 MS. BRINK said she wanted to point out that the rate of violent crime among offenders 35 and older has decreased, and that where violent crime is on the increase, is in younger populations which would not be affected by this bill. She said that in Washington State, prosecutors and police officers have observed that since the passage of their "Three Strikes" law, criminals have been showing a scary tendency to be more violent or desperate when they are about to be apprehended. They are more willing to resist arrest, knowing that for that crime, they will spend a lifetime in prison. She also argued that incarcerating a person for life places a much larger management burden, as there is no incentive for good behavior. She also thought that the incarceration of older prisoners forces the release of younger ones, and so the desired result is not a consequence of this bill. She said the largest group of inmates is in the 18- to 24-year-old category and is uneducated and unemployed. They don't have a high school degree and are likely to have been raised by a single parent. They have an income of less than $10,000 a year. Nationwide, more than half of convicted violent offenders were under the influence of drugs or alcohol and she thought that in Alaska, the percentages were probably higher. She said child abuse and neglect increased by 40 percent, the chance that the child will eventually become a criminal. She said these are areas where violent crime could be effectively combatted through education and social policy. Violent crime needs to be prevented, not punished after the fact. She feared the legacy of the "Three Strikes" bill could be that it diverted limited resources away from things that actually could have had a positive effect on our crime rate. Number 089 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE responded saying he agreed Alaska's violent crime rate has not gone up, but he would argue that the type of violent crime had gone from domestic violence to drive by shootings. He also said the public's perceptions of their vulnerability to violent crime has increased. He thought part of what this bill did was to send a message of support to the average citizen, building their support in the criminal justice system. He thought it was pretty low now, after 40 years of what he said that some would call coddling criminals. He said it was hard for him to imagine and the testimony last year indicated that serious felonies such as this bill affects, are already seriously litigated. He also reminded the committee there was discretion allowed on the part of the prosecutor, and he argued that they would only attempt this route, if they had a sure case. He stated he would also like to remind the committee that this bill is not like the "Three Strikes" legislation of other states that have plugged up their courts, and he could say, at least in the case of New York, they were wanting copies of this bill to use as a starting point for their own "Three Strikes" or habitual offender legislation. Finally, he wanted to remind the committee there were perks in prison, and so he was not convinced by arguments that if you place someone in prison long term, they would not be able to be managed. He said that there were perks for good behavior and so we did not have to let them out early to make them feel good. Number 130 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER wanted to verify whether there was any other testimony. MARGARET BERCK, Attorney and member of the Alaska Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said that in looking at this bill as a trial attorney, she wanted to share her views as to what she thought this bill would mean to the public and criminals in Alaska. She stated she could think of one of her clients that might fit under this legislation, who had been sentenced to 61 years in prison with 20 years suspended. By the time he gets released and is clear of his sentence, he would be 72 years of age. She was concerned that the bill, as currently worded, did not allow for the discretion of either the parole board or the judge to go back and look at someone's sentence until they had served half of it, or 49 1/2 years. She thought the sponsor intended that when the person gets in their sixties or seventies and is unlikely to commit any more crimes, they would be released, so the public would not have to care for them in a costly prison nursing home. She was concerned that there was no provision for going back to the court and requesting a modification of sentence for a rehabilitated prisoner. She pointed out that she had only been successful twice in getting a modification of sentence for any of her clients, and one was for a person diagnosed with terminal cancer. She also expressed concern that this bill would limit the ability of the judiciary, who she thought had acted very responsibly. She also thought the committee should reconsider the position of this bill to force an elderly individual to serve the remainder of their sentence, after they are no longer a threat to society. She was also concerned that this bill would give greater discretionary authority to the prosecutor by forcing up the penalties and making them more mandatory. She pointed out that prosecutors are not elected and so the public has very little control over them. She concluded by saying she agreed with Representative Porter, who she thought was saying that each person was an individual and that bills such as these, took away the discretionary authority of the judiciary to treat each person as an individual and make individual decisions on the people who appear before them. Number 308 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Ms. Berck what she meant when she said she had only one client who would fall under the purview of this bill. MS. BERCK verified that what she meant was she had one client within the last two years, who would fall within the parameters of this bill. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated he thought that the fact that this bill was before the committee, was a demonstration of the public perception that criminals get sentenced lightly and are back on the streets creating havoc. He asked if Ms. Berck could offer an alternative solution to this bill that would keep criminals in jail for a longer period of time their first or second offense, and that would satisfy his constituents' demands that the legislature do something about these repeat offenders. Number 355 MS. BERCK said she thought that public perception was possibly skewed by the unusual cases that are publicized in the press. She said she didn't know how to educate the public and she didn't know who was responsible for this education process. She said her response was to not take the discretion away from the judiciary to make those determinations of who should be sent to prison for a long time and who should have the chance of rehabilitation. Number 383 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked Ms. Berck to explain how in the 1980s we completely revamped our criminal code and put in presumptive sentencing. She wanted to point out that a lot of discretion was taken away from judges a long time ago. CHAIR JAMES commented that she thought the members of this committee were aware of presumptive sentencing, and so asked Ms. Berck to respond quickly in the interest of saving time. MS. BERCK stated that under presumptive sentencing, the criminal code did increase penalties and did erode the discretionary authority of the judges. She said if larger penalties do deter criminals, we should have seen some results from these stiffer penalties of the 1980s, but haven't. CHAIR JAMES stated she wanted to point out that although the level of crime has remained relatively the same, statistics show that there is a difference in the kind of crimes and the people who are committing them. She stated if that were included and we realized that even with this new layer of crimes and criminals, the level of overall crime had stayed the same, then we could safely assume the crime that we had before had decreased as a result of presumptive sentencing. Number 421 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER admitted that his background was going to show on this bill. He said that presumptive sentencing came about as a result of the abuse of judicial discretion. He stated a study had indicated that the judges at that time were sentencing minorities and people of lower economic backgrounds to harsher penalties than those who were not in these categories. He submitted that the average offender would not be affected by this bill, but rather your "John Dillinger" variety of criminal. He thought these people should be sent away for longer periods of time. He argued that the fiscal notes and concerns of the defense bar were driven by the philosophy of what would happen if every opportunity of invoking this legislation were invoked. He said these decisions would be made by the prosecutors. He pointed out there was a history of the habitual offender law in this state which would suggest that these fiscal notes were not correct. He said when he was a police officer, there was a habitual offender law and it was used as a deterrent to persuade some professional criminals to get out of business. He also argued that this type of law does help to turn around the average criminal who gets into a bad pattern, because they feel the threat of being sent away for life. He said that habitual offender legislation has saved a lot of crime and expense in this state, as opposed to causing it. REPRESENTATIVE IVAN asked if there was anyone representing the Department of Corrections. He asked what percentage of the population who had committed these types of crimes were minorities. Number 475 JERRY SHRINER, Special Assistant to the Commissioner, Department of Corrections, said he couldn't answer the question of what percentage of these criminals were minorities. CHAIR JAMES asked that he gather this information and provide it to Representative Ivan. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON was curious if we had invited the Department of Law to testify on this bill. CHAIR JAMES responded there was no special guest list; anyone was invited to testify on any bill they wished. She added that the State Affairs committee's overview was to see how these bills would affect the state, and while there probably was some legal questions, she felt very comfortable with letting them be raised in the Judiciary Committee. She said Representative Robinson was free to invite anyone she wished in the future, but this committee did not have a special guest list. She added that generally the sponsor makes many of these invitations or they come on their own. Number 510 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved that the committee pass HB 38 with individual recommendations and the attached questionable fiscal notes. CHAIR JAMES asked if there were any objections. Hearing none, the bill was passed to the next committee of referral. HSTA - 02/09/95 HB 106 - REPEAL OF ART IN PUBLIC PLACES REQUIREMENT Number 519 CHAIR JAMES called for Representative Al Vezey to testify and provide an explanation of the intent of his bill. REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY, Sponsor of HB 106, stated that HB 106 is a bill intended to repeal one of the statutes that set into operation a formula funding program. He said the purpose of the bill is to repeal a formula program and to place back into the realm of the legislature, the accountability and responsibility of the appropriation of state funds. He did not intend to comment on the merits of where the funding for this program goes. He said the statute being repealed by this bill is probably one of in excess of 100 statutes where the legislature has abrogated its constitutional authority and responsibility to appropriate funds. He thought it was very appropriate that legislators start to take steps to bring back some of this authority and responsibility back to the legislature and away from the Administration. He said it gets to an issue of accountability. He said when it is in a formula program, there is no one that the public can hold accountable if they do not like the way that money is being spent. He said this was just one of many areas in the statutes where he felt the legislature needed to resume its constitutional responsibility and accountability for appropriating funds. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON stated she thought it was good public policy to include art in the constructing costs, which she felt really made a building pleasant to be in for long periods of time. She said she was curious as to why he felt this was not good public policy. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he thought he had answered this in his opening statement, but pointed out that the state spends a lot more than 1 percent of our public works for aesthetics. He said you could build a box for under $100 a square foot and our public buildings cost $200 a square foot. He said some of this was requirements of law, but much of this funding was architectural improvements which add to the aesthetics and quality of the building. He said the legislature has this responsibility and should be accountable for how we spend this money. With a formula program, there is no accountability or responsibility. He said the public has no recourse. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON stated she did not see how the architect had anything to do with the 1 percent. She said the 1 percent was intended for decorating the building after it was already built. She wondered what he meant by the role of the architect in this. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY responded that her question addressed the area of aesthetics and public appreciation of the building, and he had commented that most of the aesthetics and public appreciation factor was incorporated into the architecture of the building. Number 600 CHAIR JAMES commented she saw this bill as taking the approach that currently when there is a capital project appropriation, it is 1 percent larger to factor in the formula program for art. If this bill passed, then the legislature would have the choice of saying this is how much they want to spend on this building and this is how much they want to spend on art. She said that currently with the formula funding program, there is no relationship between the 1 percent for art and the value of the building. With the choice, the legislature may choose to spend more or less for art in a particular building. She said she thought the thrust of this bill was to put the choice back to the legislature to decide exactly what they want to do. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said she didn't think this would change things. She said she knew from personal experience that people building a new structure did not divide out the 1 percent that they would spend on art. She said they would come in and request funding, and out of that amount take 1 percent for art. She said she did not see this was going to save any money for the budget. She said if a contractor didn't have that requirement for art, they would come back to the legislature to get additional funding. CHAIR JAMES stated her personal response was that she would much rather have that 1 percent go into a maintenance account for the maintenance of things which are not currently being addressed. REPRESENTATIVE IVAN mentioned that he could appreciate the intent of this bill and felt this 1 percent could accumulate to a sizeable amount over the course of many construction projects. He said this could, five years down the line, affect issues of economic development and things such as water and sewer projects, which might not have the necessary amount of funding available. He said if there was a need for art in a particular instance, he was sure that someone would raise the issue with the legislature or the Administration. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated art was something that was truly in the eye of the beholder, and when he looked at some of the art in our public buildings, it was hard for him to justify some the curly Q's and squiggles that are called art. He said he agreed that art should be something that should be optional to the builder and not mandatory. He felt the sponsor was right, that by allowing this formula program, the legislature was abrogating its responsibility to oversee the budget. He stated he agreed that this should certainly be made voluntary and not mandatory. Number 644 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated he agreed with Representative Vezey's analysis that the aesthetics of a building could be designed in with the architectural details. He said he would support moving this bill out of committee. CHAIR JAMES called Tim Wilson to come up and testify on HB 106. Number 651 TIM WILSON, Executive Director, Alaska State Council on the Arts, said the council was an autonomous council and commission budget unit under the Department of Education. He referred to a letter from the council enclosed in the committee packets. He wanted to point out that the vast majority of these projects were in schools. Thus, he claimed the primary constituency that would be affected by this would be children. He said in rural areas, schools are very much public facilities used not only for the education of children. He stated the council considers this program as kind of a fiscally conservative program. He said the program operated on eligible costs, and not every building was eligible and not every cost was eligible. He stated it was only above the ground construction cost of that building. He said it was not 1 percent of the entire capital budget. He argued that the formula funding program just obliges the contractor to set aside 1 percent of their capital project for purposes of art and decor. He argued that the legislature did have oversight in that they appropriated the capital budgets. He said it did not cost more because they just cut a little on something like the carpets or floors to pay for the art and aesthetic enrichment of the building. He thought this was reflected in the attached fiscal notes. He said he would agree that art is in the eye of the beholder. He said the Arts Council does not administer this program, but are its advocates. He thought this program allowed for each community to decide what type of art it wanted in its buildings. He said art is a legacy that reflects the values of society and he thought that to take it away was a serious loss. He attributed the increase of crime and the decay of society to a loss of our culture's values and he thought that art could reinforce and educate us of our values. He said that as individuals enter the Capitol, they are reminded of the history of our state, as a result of the art displayed. He claimed that to repeal this program would not save any money, but we would lose a statement of our history and our spirit. TAPE 95-13, SIDE A Number 015 CHAIR JAMES reiterated that she supported art in public places. She thought though, that she did not agree that this program did not cost us any money. Even if you take it out of something else such as the carpet, it still costs money. She stated she was distressed that we had about $500 million on the request list for schools in this state. She said many of these schools were in dire need of repairs for life-saving health safety issues. She asked if it wouldn't be better for the legislature to make a decision on how much they wanted to spend on art in these schools, as opposed to a mandatory 1 percent, so that maybe they could come up with some of the funding necessary to resolve some of these safety issues. MR. WILSON said he did not mean to imply that this program did not cost money. Certainly it does. He stated what he meant was that it did not get added on top of the capital budget. He thought it did not add to the cost of the building. He emphasized with the legislature having to prioritize budget decisions, but he thought this was a very small percentage of the budget pie. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER thought perhaps there was a better process of budgeting and decision making in Southeast Alaska than Anchorage, but he had to comment that he thought art in the Federal Building was really bad. He said he could not see how $100,000 neon tubes on a wall were a wise use of public funds, and although this was not a state expenditure, it was similar to the type of program they were proposing to repeal. MR. WILSON said communities selected the type of art that was appropriate for them. Number 053 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER argued that these types of decisions could still be made if they repealed this statute, but the question was, who was to be held accountable - some art people or those charged with the entire project and expenditure. MR. WILSON explained that after a capital project appropriation is made, then the builder will begin planning either through the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities or the Department of Education. By regulation, they must form a committee, which includes the architect, the users of the building and other artists and members of the community. He said the artists sometimes visit the schools and work with teachers and students to try and get their input into the design of the art. He thought if they could visit different facilities around the state, they would be very proud of the art displayed. Number 108 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated he also disagreed that it did not cost money to implement the 1 percent for art program. He also added that this bill did not deny art in public buildings, it just said that we would not demand it. He also wanted to point out that we had art in public places before this program was in effect, and he felt this would continue. He said we did not have to dedicate or dictate that it be there. Number 126 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN wanted to state for the record that he was not in opposition to art in public places. Having said this, he thought there were better uses for this money as we plan for the future. CHAIR JAMES commented that some of her favorite art in the Capitol was the school art displayed on the walls, and this did not require the 1 percent funding formula to be placed there. She said the problem that she had with this program, was the arbitrary taking of 1 percent, without consultation of the legislature, and deciding this was the best way to spend our money. Number 153 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he wanted to send a message to the artistic community that maybe if they were a little more sensitive to the traditional values of the people, maybe they would have more support. He cited an example of some art that his children had seen in the Alaska State Museum, which displayed a full frontal view of a woman urinating in a cup. He questioned the artistic value of this and said this was why he thought we should give the local communities more options to decide the type of art they wanted in their buildings. Number 185 CHAIR JAMES read a testimonial letter from the Institute of Alaska Native Arts, a statewide organization formed in 1976 to provide services to Alaskan Native artists and the general public. They feared that without the current 1 percent for art program, the works of Alaskan artists would be limited to a few private collections. In today's declining budgets, the acquisition abilities of most museums were declining. They said the current percent for art program still costs less than one penny for every dollar spent on construction, as art in rural schools receives one- half of 1 percent contribution. The display of art in public buildings sends a message of creativity and opportunity. An empty building sends a very different message. They strongly urged the committee to not take any action on HB 106, and wherever possible, maintain the current level of support for art programs in the state. CHAIR JAMES commented that with this period of declining revenues, the legislature was going to be forced to take a closer look at many of these formula programs, and the question has to be asked what happened with art in public places before these programs were in place. She said that as Representative Green already pointed out, the art has always been there. She said that to say that if you take this program away, art will go away, she thought was a misnomer. She thought this legislature was trying to look at more responsible ways of spending state money and to allow the public more choice to see if they would rather spend the money a different way. Number 245 NATALIE ROTHAUS, Executive Director, Juneau Arts and Humanities Council, said the Juneau Arts and Humanities Council is concerned over HB 106. They said the purpose of the percent for arts program is to foster culture and the arts. She said that repeal of this program will negatively affect the two constituencies that it is designed to help - the public and the artists. They thought the biggest impact would be felt by Alaska's schools and children. The result of this program has been to enrich the environment of our buildings and to bring the works of our artists to public view. It has also given artists work, support, and a place to display their art. They thought it should be government's role to set the example of creating an environment that is culturally rich and aesthetically pleasing. They quoted an editorial which stated that government had as much of a responsibility to fund the arts, which nourish our souls, as they did commerce, which feeds our bodies. The Juneau Arts and Humanities Council feels that government has the responsibility to enhance the quality of life in Alaska, and urged the committee to vote against HB 106. Number 270 CHARLES ROHRBACHER, a local artist and iconographer, said he thought that it was important for the committee to hear from working artists on the impact of HB 106. He said he did not qualify for the 1 percent for art program, as the quality of his art was religious. He said that as a member of the community of artists, he urged the committee to consider the importance of their decision today. He thought it would send a message of what the state believed about the purpose and function of art to artists and to the general community. He also thought it sent a strong message about what we value and don't value. He said he did not consider this a subsidy, but rather a patronage. He stated that historically, different entities were the patrons of the arts, including the church, kings, and in our country, the state as a representation of the people. He said he would urge the committee to take this responsibility seriously. He said that historically, people have continuously found the resources to support art and he would urge the committee to do the same and to not eliminate the percent for art program. Number 329 CHAIR JAMES invited Representative Vezey to come and make a closing comment on his bill. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said that in his opening statement, he did not address the funding formula program intentionally. He said there had been a number of wrong statements about how the formula worked, but it was in the statutes and anyone could look it up for themselves. Thus, he would not take the time now to speak to these erroneous statements. He said the subject of the bill was not the elimination of the arts, but accountability of how the legislature appropriates funds. He thought that accountability and responsibility should come back to the legislature. CHAIR JAMES asked for a motion to move this bill out of committee. Number 339 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN moved that the committee pass out HB 106 and attached fiscal notes with individual recommendations. CHAIR JAMES asked if there were any objections. REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS stated he was going to vote against this bill, saying that we were a multi-cultural state. He said various cultures express their values and beliefs through art, and as has been pointed out, some of these displays are in our public facilities, and this should be continued. He thought the legislature should not do anything to jeopardize this and it was important that as a society, we continue this program. CHAIR JAMES reiterated that the motion was to pass this bill out of committee with attached fiscal notes and individual recommendations. She called for a roll call vote on the motion. REPRESENTATIVES James, Porter, Green, Ivan, and Ogan voted in favor of the motion. Representatives Robinson and Willis voted against. CHAIR JAMES announced that the bill had passed. ADJOURNMENT CHAIR JAMES said that for those bill sponsors who could not attend the Saturday meeting, the committee would be rolling their bills over until Tuesday, February 14, 1995. She said we would be having a Saturday, February 11, meeting to hear HB 132 and HJR 20. She adjourned the meeting at 10 a.m.