Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/21/1995 08:04 AM STA
* first hearing in first committee of referral
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE February 21, 1995 8:04 a.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Jeannette James, Chair Representative Scott Ogan, Vice-Chair Representative Joe Green Representative Ivan Representative Brian Porter Representative Caren Robinson Representative Ed Willis MEMBERS ABSENT None COMMITTEE CALENDAR HB 83: "An Act relating to state implementation of federal statutes." HEARD AND HELD 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. 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 a 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." PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE HB 127: "An Act increasing the minimum term of imprisonment for assaults in the fourth degree committed against a police officer, fire fighter, correctional officer, emergency medical technician, paramedic, ambulance attendant or other emergency responders." HEARD AND HELD *HB 90: "An Act changing the date that the legislature convenes in the years following a gubernatorial election." PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE *HB 30: "An Act relating to a dress code for public schools." HEARD AND HELD *HB 130: "An Act relating to agency review of public comment on the adoption, amendment, and repeal of regulations; relating to the examination of proposed regulations, amendments of regulations, and orders repealing regulations by the Administrative Regulation Review Committee and the Department of Law; relating to the submission to, and acceptance by the lieutenant governor of proposed regulations, amendments of regulations, and orders repealing regulations; and requiring agencies to make certain determinations before adopting regulations, amendments of regulations, or orders repealing regulations." HEARD AND HELD (* First public hearing) WITNESS REGISTER REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN Alaska State Legislature State Capitol, Room 409 Juneau, AK 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-3878 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided Sponsor Statement for HB 83 MOLLY SHERMAN, Volunteer Alaska Environmental Lobby, Inc. P.O. Box 2215 Juneau, AK 99802 Telephone: (907) 463-3366 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified Against HB 83. JACK KREINHEDER, Senior Policy Analyst Office of Management and Budget P.O. Box A Juneau, AK 99811-0102 Telephone: (907) 465-4676 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided Information on HB 83 TOM ANDERSON, Legislative Assistant Representative Terry Martin Alaska State Legislature State Capitol, Room 502 Juneau, AK 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-3783 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided Information on HJR 4. JEFF PRATHER, Acting Director Department Of Revenue Charitable Gaming Division 11th Floor State Office Bldg. P.O. Box 110440 Juneau, AK 99811-0440 Telephone: (907) 465-2229 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 44 BRUCE CAMPBELL, Legislative Aide Representative Pete Kelly Alaska State Legislature State Capitol, Room 513 Juneau, AK 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-2327 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 127 TOM STEARNS, Major Deputy Director of State Troopers 5700 E. Tudor Road Anchorage, AK 99507 Telephone: (907) 269-5641 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 127 JOE DAMEKO, First Sergeant Division of State Troopers Department of Public Safety 2760 Sherwood Lane Juneau, AK 99801-8545 Telephone: (907) 465-4000 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 127 VICTOR GUNN, Deputy Chief Fairbanks City Police 656 7th Avenue Fairbanks, AK 99701 Telephone: (907) 459-6500 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 127 REPRESENTATIVE BETTYE DAVIS Alaska State Legislature State Capitol, Room 430 Juneau, AK 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-3875 POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 90 and HB 30 REPRESENTATIVE PETE KELLY Alaska State Legislature State Capitol, Room 513 Juneau, AK 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-2327 POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 127 and HB 130 PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: HB 83 SHORT TITLE: REVIEW OF FEDERALLY MANDATED PROGRAMS SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) OGAN, Porter, Kohring, Toohey, James, Kelly JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 01/13/95 42 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 01/16/95 42 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 01/16/95 42 (H) WTR, STA, JUD 01/25/95 136 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KOHRING, TOOHEY 01/27/95 162 (H) COSPONSOR(S): JAMES 01/31/95 (H) WTR AT 05:00 PM CAPITOL 408 01/31/95 (H) MINUTE(WTR) 02/03/95 242 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KELLY 02/08/95 268 (H) WTR RPT CS(WTR) 3DP 4NR 02/08/95 269 (H) DP: PHILLIPS, WILLIAMS, BARNES 02/08/95 269 (H) NR: KUBINA, G.DAVIS, MULDER, MACKIE 02/08/95 269 (H) 8 FISCAL NOTES (GOV, DCRA, F&G, DHSS) 02/08/95 269 (H) (LAW, DPS, REV, DOTPF) 2/8/95 02/08/95 269 (H) 9 ZERO FN (ADM, DCED, DOC, DOE, DEC) 02/08/95 269 (H) (F&G, LABOR, DNR, DM&VA) 2/8/95 02/08/95 269 (H) REFERRED TO STA 02/14/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 519 02/21/95 (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 02/09/95 (H) MINUTE(STA) 02/14/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 519 02/14/95 (H) MINUTE(STA) 02/21/95 (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,Green 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 02/09/95 (H) MINUTE(STA) 02/10/95 321 (H) COSPONSOR(S): GREEN 02/11/95 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 102 02/11/95 (H) MINUTE(STA) 02/21/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102 BILL: HB 127 SHORT TITLE: 120-DAY JAIL: ASSAULT ON OFFICERS SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KELLY JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 01/27/95 156 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 01/27/95 156 (H) STA, JUD, FIN 02/14/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 519 02/14/95 (H) MINUTE(STA) 02/21/95 (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 02/09/95 (H) MINUTE(STA) 02/14/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 519 02/14/95 (H) MINUTE(STA) 02/21/95 (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 02/09/95 (H) MINUTE(STA) 02/14/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 519 02/14/95 (H) MINUTE(STA) 02/21/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102 BILL: HB 130 SHORT TITLE: REGULATION ADOPTION PROCEDURES & REVIEW SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KELLY,James JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 01/27/95 157 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 01/27/95 157 (H) STA, JUD, FIN 02/14/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 519 02/14/95 (H) MINUTE(STA) 02/14/95 (H) ARR AT 12:00 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205 02/15/95 396 (H) COSPONSOR(S): JAMES 02/21/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102 ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 95-18, SIDE A Number 000 REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES, Chairperson of the House State Affairs Standing Committee, called the meeting to order at 8:04 a.m. Members present at the call to order were Representatives Ivan, Brian Porter, Caren Robinson, Ed Willis, Jeannette James, and Scott Ogan. The first item on the agenda was HB 83. Chair James reminded the committee that they heard the sponsor statement at the last meeting and asked that the bill be revisited. HSTA - 02/21/95 HB 83 - REVIEW OF FEDERALLY MANDATED PROGRAMS Number 016 REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN spoke on the CS for HB 83 and noted that copies had been passed out to committee members. CHAIR JAMES called for a motion to adopt the CS as the working document. REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER moved to adopt the CS, Version C, for HB 83, which was from the World Trade Committee. There being no objection, it was so ordered. CHAIR JAMES noted that Representative Joe Green arrived. Number 055 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN explained the change in the CS; namely, that the review process of federal mandates was changed from "annually" to "once every four years." This change would reduce the cost of the mandate by 70 percent. Representative Ogan said he discovered while studying this bill that there has never been a study as to what federal mandates cost the state. One study showed, however, that the municipality of Anchorage alone will spend approximately $430 million to pay for environmental mandates from 1991 to the year 2000. Representative Ogan suspects we will pay billions of dollars on the state level in that same kind of time frame. He said there are currently 192 federal mandates in force against the state, and he hopes this bill will be cost effective, and if passed, it will save the state money. It will set up methods for dealing with the costs, for negotiating with the federal government, and also for suing the federal government, if necessary. Number 101 REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON said it sounds good in theory, yet every four years the U.S. Congress passes laws, and from these laws we get mandates. The U.S. Department of Education has stated that you must have certain laws regarding guns in schools, for instance. The state government may or may not agree with the mandate, yet if it comes from the federal government, not from the state level, it would need reviewing. Her concern was about what they would be trying to accomplish doing reviews every four years, if it was to make determinations about the costs to implement the mandates, or to make recommendations about whether or not we should implement the mandates. Number 124 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN assured Representative Robinson that the intent of the bill is to scrutinize the mandates and laws to determine if they are constitutional under the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. That is the thrust of this bill. He believes the federal government is exceeding its authority, and he said we often hear about how a certain law might work for different areas in the lower 48 states, but also they are not applicable here. The idea is to scrutinize the mandates as litmus tests to see if they are constitutional. If they are unconstitutional then they can argue with the federal government in court, if necessary, about their authority to impose the laws on the state. It will be up to the Governor to decide whether or not to fight these mandates, and different governors will surely take different approaches with it. Number 169 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON agreed that federal laws cannot be changed. The legislature can only control such things as mandates that the state is currently accepting and following. Every year there is something put on us from the federal government, such as the helmet law and the increase on the drinking age. Many mandates have threats of losing federal dollars accompanying them, if the state does not implement it by a certain date. She asked if Representative Ogan perceives this bill as a means by which the legislature could decide whether or not to implement the mandate, or as a way to say the Governor should fight it. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said it was a fair analysis. He mentioned a situation the city of Anchorage experienced recently where they refused to implement an environmental mandate. It would have cost the city $1 million to implement the mandate. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON concluded the bill calls for another report, or a review on a report; it doesnt force anybody to do anything. She only felt confused about the cost. CHAIR JAMES said there would be a cost for the review and a fiscal note is attached. She suspects if they determined that a considerable amount of money was required to implement a mandate, then made a decision not to implement it, the savings would probably offset the cost of the evaluation. She added there is no sure way to identify those moneys; however, according to the information she has, many of the federal mandates cost the state more to implement than the federal funds provided to the state for implementation. Number 202 REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked what affect it would have on mandates that come down during the interim period; for instance, a mandate that came down three years ago and has been implemented for these last three years. He wondered if that would lose much of the effectiveness of what this bill is trying to accomplish. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN agreed the bill might lose some of its effectiveness. While studying the fiscal note they determined it would be cost prohibitive to review the mandates each year. On the other hand, it might be prudent to build something into the bill to allow for reviews on any new mandates that come in the interim. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asserted that, while it would be a four year cycle, an unacceptable mandate might come up within the first year that should be reviewed. CHAIR JAMES inserted that she felt the Governor should be given the message about an unacceptable mandate. In fact, it is currently an administrative option. She said they could be doing that now. HB 83 merely declares that they will review mandates at least every four years. If a savings was truly recognized it would behoove the Administration to review the mandates without being told that they have to. Number 240 REPRESENTATIVE ED WILLIS inquired about how to distinguish between the regional concerns versus the national interests. CHAIR JAMES said she suspects that every decision we ought to make should be representative of both regional and national interests. However, one problem with federal mandates is that although they may apply to Los Angeles or New York, they may not apply to our area. A problem with federal mandates is that they can only do it in one size fits all. The question is, if the federal government has the right to make decisions for Alaska based on problems relating to situations in other states. Number 260 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS asked if the review commission would take each mandate individually, then make a ruling on it and say a particular mandate should not apply to Alaska. He wondered how it would work, in practice, when it reached the commission level. He was confused about how we would determine if we should let something go, because it is in the national interest, or because it is a regional thing and they should leave us alone. Number 277 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN pointed out that there is a section in the bill that covers new mandates, on page 2, line 30. The commissioner of a department or head of another agency of the executive branch authorized to develop a state program to respond to mandates contained in federal statute shall, with the assistance of the Department of Law, review the applicable federal statutes, regulations, guidelines, and policies to determine whether the federal government has exceeded its constitutional authority to impose mandates on the state. If it is determined that the federal government may have exceeded its authority, the commissioner or agency head shall submit a written report to the governor and the house and senate judiciary committees setting out the basis for this determination. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN added that there will be disagreements concerning what the federal government might do that is good for the state, but whether or not it is constitutional, is the question here. Number 300 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS asked if part of the recommendation is that they could file suit against the federal government, if the commission saw fit to do that. CHAIR JAMES added that the Governor would be the one to file the suit. CHAIR JAMES had to leave for another meeting, so Representative Ogan, Vice-Chair of the State Affairs Committee, took the Chair for the rest of the meeting. VICE-CHAIR OGAN asked for testimony from Molly Sherman who had signed up to testify. Number 335 MOLLY SHERMAN, Volunteer, Alaskan Environmental Lobby, and life long Alaskan, testified against HB 83. Ms. Sherman said they have 19 member agencies throughout the state, and there are almost 2,000 members. Below is the written statement from Alaska Environmental Lobby, Inc. "The Alaskan Environmental Lobby strongly supports all endeavors that serve to give the people in Alaska opportunities to better manage all resources; human, physical and spiritual. We feel there are many states' rights issues that must be addressed, if we are going to move with intelligence and consistency into the 21st Century. "We also believe, as does the sponsor of this legislation that the state government should `scrutinize the extent and scope of authority asserted by the federal government' in many areas. "There are many examples of federal mandates where the benefits to this state and its citizens, in economic, public health and safety terms, have been substantial. Minimum drinking age, compensatory schooling, safe working standards. The U.S. Congress is not made up of raging environmentalists. They have not conspired to keep Alaska from using its resources, they are interested in the health and safety concerns of all its citizens. "It has been suggested that this legislation could save the state money. We have been unable to determine how additional administrative costs, forays into litigation with the federal government and forfeiture of federally mandated monies will help Alaskas economy. In a time when we all feel the need to be frugal and fiscally responsible HB 83 seems uncertain. "However, we feel that this can be done in less costly - in real administrative costs and potential litigation charges - and more efficient ways than those proposed in HB 83. It is unnecessary to do this on statutory basis. State agencies are already capable of telling us when a program is unnecessary, over burdensome, overpriced and onerous. A legislator with a specific concern is able to contact the specific agency and get all the pertinent information. At a time when interagency cooperation is stressed, this would seem a viable and efficient alternative." Number 383 JACK KREINHEDER, Senior Policy Analyst, Office of Management and Budget in the Governors Office, offered some brief comments in regard to HB 83. He noted that the bill was amended in the House Special Committee on World Trade and the State-Federal Relations. The intent was to make the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) the lead agency in the review of these federal mandates. They prepared a corresponding fiscal note for it. After establishing that the CS had been adopted, MR. KREINHEDER addressed some concerns his office had, and he asked the committee to respond, as to whether those concerns were addressed in the CS. He assured Vice-Chair Ogan that the Administration is supportive and in agreement with the legislatures concerns about the issue of federal mandates, and, in particular, unfunded federal mandates. Nevertheless, they have concerns pertaining to the process this bill requires of them, with countless numbers of federal requirements that could be interpreted as mandates, such as requirements to have EXIT signs in every public building. The concern is that an agency might have to review and write reports about such issues as fire exit signs. Mr. Kreinheder said he would be glad to work with the committee on specific wording, but it should be something to the effect of federal mandates having a significant fiscal or policy program impact on the state of Alaska, to allow their agency to use some common sense determination about what is an issue, as opposed to routine public safety types of requirements. Number 445 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked Mr. Kreinheder what happens now when each department gets federal laws, which come to the state for a determination. Her question was if there are other reviews in the other departments. MR. KREINHEDER responded there are two steps in the process. The first step happens before the enactment of these laws and requirements. They keep close coordination between the Governors Office in Washington, D.C., with John Katz and his staff who provide early warning on some of these requirements. Presently, they are tracking the various block grant proposals in Congress to see how they might affect the state. His office also works with the Congressional Delegation on any input they wish to have into those proposals. The second step comes after these proposals are passed. Mr. Kreinheder said they continue to receive information from the Washington office, but beyond that, he was not aware of any formal reviewing process the departments are required to follow. As far as he knew, it is largely up to the department as to what kind of review process they would use for the mandates. VICE-CHAIR OGAN said he would be happy to work with Mr. Kreinheder on changing the language of the bill to avoid a major paper shuffle. After all, the intent of this legislation is to scrutinize potentially unconstitutional mandates and those which cost the state large amounts of money. Number 476 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER commented that the legislature has contracted with someone to perform basically the same function for the legislature that Mr. Katz is doing for the Administration. With the positioning of our Congressional Delegation it seems an appropriate time, in Representative Porters view, to try to intercede during the time the bill is being considered in Congress, as opposed to after it has been completed. He wondered if they might consider some element of anticipation as opposed to response. Number 489 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said that he would work with Mr. Kreinheder to help get a CS ready for Judiciary along the lines discussed. Representative Porter added that he should correct the motion he made earlier to adopt CS, Version C. The version they should have adopted was Version F, dated 2/10/95. With the permission of the committee he said he would revise that motion. There was no objection, so the motion passed. Number 508 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said that since they adopted another CS they would want to make a significant change in directions, pass the bill out with a new fiscal note. He asked if he was correct in thinking it will be a significantly different product when it reaches the Judiciary Committee. Number 514 VICE-CHAIR OGAN confirmed that there would be a significantly different product. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN expressed concern that the committee will be passing out a bill they know nothing about and would prefer they hold it. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said she understood that instead of doing a sweeping review of federal mandates, they are trying to cut back on the number of programs to look at. They are looking at the programs that have a more serious impact on the state, although she was not sure who would determine what is serious and what is not. Everything is the same except the numbers, or the types of programs to review. VICE-CHAIR OGAN supported Representative Robinsons view saying they are merely cutting back the nonessential items to review. Number 543 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN shared his views, but he needed to know what kinds of changes are being made. He understood they want to disregard the small, frivolous portions and key in on big costly mandates; nevertheless, he would like to be more comfortable before the bill is passed out of State Affairs. Number 553 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said that in order to make HB 83 a comprehensive bill, it would be appropriate to recognize what they do as a legislature, as an Administration, and as a state, is try to influence legislation at the federal level before it is passed. That mechanism might provide the heads up to activate this type of review, if our efforts to stop it on the federal level fail and the legislation passes. To make this effective, we should do it before the fact. He agreed with Representative Green they should probably work on the bill at the committee level rather than to move it on. Number 578 VICE-CHAIR OGAN decided that he would work with different people on the committee to draft some amendments for the bill, so he would hold HB 83 over and go on to HJR 4. HSTA - 02/21/95 HJR 4 - USE OF INITIATIVES TO AMEND CONSTITUTION Number 619 TOM ANDERSON, Legislative Assistant to Representative Terry Martin, testified on behalf of Representative Martin who was unable to attend the meeting. He reviewed some previous discussion on HB 4 when the State Affairs Committee debated it, and reminded the committee there was discussion on increasing the percentage of the vote. He noted that Representative Green offered to submit an amendment, which increases the voting of an initiative from majority to 55 percent. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked someone to refresh her memory, because she only remembered voting to increase the percentage to two-thirds. Up to then, there had not been a new bill before the committee that increased it to 55 percent. If they were to change it to 55 percent, they were, in fact, rescinding their original motion to change it to two-thirds. She stated that she objected to the motion. Number 635 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN mentioned offering an amendment after a lengthy discussion with Mr. Anderson about whether frivolous changes to the Constitution could be accomplished with a simple majority vote. The other side of the debate stated that if it required three-fourths or two-thirds, there would never be a change. Constitutions are living documents as we have seen by our Federal Constitution, and there have been significant changes. On the whole, the changes have been good, and sometimes changes are necessary. His reason for suggesting 55 percent is to try to strike a balance of allowing the people to be heard when there is a reason for change. It is conjectural, if they wanted something, that they could get two-thirds, but he feels reasonably sure they could get 55 percent of the votes. Number 661 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS noted that he remains strong about a two- thirds vote. It is historically acceptable, and has been since the beginning of the nation concerning the federal institution. The citizenry through the years has accepted it, and it is not impossible to accomplish change under the two-thirds provision. He said he will personally support the two-thirds vote. REPRESENTATIVE IVAN responded to the debate by restating that the democratic process is slow moving. He would like to see some changes, and subsistence would be one change, and if they had a way to take advantage of this legislation he said they would do it in a heartbeat. However, looking at the balance of state population this would be democratic process to the majority, but not for the folks on the other side who are being governed, too. MR. ANDERSON added that, currently, 18 states allow the initiative process for amending of the constitution, and 6 more states allow amending of the statutes in their process. All of these states require a majority. He emphasized that none of these states have this two-thirds - all of them are majority. If it is passed in the House and Senate, we would be the only state requiring two-thirds out of almost half that have the initiative process. TAPE 95-18, SIDE B Number 000 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said officials are able to debate the issue and understand what is being discussed, and then vote. The problem with requiring this of the general public is that often the public is not aware; they dont listen to debate. They expect their elected officials to go through that rigorous exercise. He believes that is why a simple majority has been used so frequently when dealing with the public, as opposed to higher standards for elected official groups. By adhering rigidly to the higher percentage he thinks we will not only grind exceedingly slow, we may grind to a halt. Number 031 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said in some ways, Representative Green was advocating the two-thirds, because if there was a real need to change the Constitution, which she agrees is sacred, it would be the responsibility of the group who introduced the initiative to educate enough people to get the two-thirds vote; also to convince them it is in the best interest of the state. This is so important that she believes it should be a higher standard. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he did not intend to support the amendment. He supported the two-thirds, because he thought it would eliminate this bill. He said he does not like the initiative process. In his opinion, if people are to vote on changes to the Constitution, the legislature should go through the arduous process of considering an amendment by two-thirds vote. VICE-CHAIR OGAN stated that an amendment was before the committee, offered by Representative Green, to delete majority and insert at least 55 percent. He wondered if it was in error, since they amended this to two-thirds. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN objected, saying the document was amended once and could be amended again. In order to be precise, the amendment should be voted down. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said her impression was that they had already changed it to two-thirds. Therefore, the appropriate amendment should be to delete two-thirds majority and insert 55 percent. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he would then recommend modifying his amendment to delete two-thirds and insert at least 55 percent. Vice Chair Ogan declared it so moved. VICE-CHAIR OGAN requested a roll call vote. REPRESENTATIVES PORTER, ROBINSON, WILLIS and OGAN voted against of the bill. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN voted in favor of the amendment. Number 140 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON voted to hold the bill over in committee. There were no objections, so the motion to hold the bill passed. HSTA - 02/21/95 HB 44 - GAMING PROCEEDS/DEFINE CHARITABLE ORGNS MR. ANDERSON stated that he was there to represent Representative Martin, who could not attend; however, because of a subcommittee conflict, Mr. Anderson gave it over to Representative Porter. Number 171 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated that the subcommittee met last week and basically tried to amalgamate the two bills they had to consider. The consensus of the committee succeeded in doing that and came forward with this bill. It does four things. The committee excluded raffles from the consideration, when restricting gaming proceeds. As opposed to bingo and pull tabs, anyone buying a raffle ticket can make an intelligent choice about who or what they are supporting on an individual basis. So, raffles are unchanged. Another consideration was about who should have these gaming permits. They left in place those who currently qualify for permits. The intent was to get gaming proceeds out of politics, so the bill provides, first, that political parties or political groups cannot have permits, and, secondly, they cannot receive from those who do, the proceeds of gaming. With assistance to that, the bill provides that anyone with a license who also makes political contributions, is prohibited from giving those proceeds to candidates or political parties or groups. They must also report to the Division of Gaming what their contributions are. Number 230 VICE-CHAIR OGAN said that he had calls from various people in his district over the concern of 501-Cs losing their gambling permits. He asked if this will affect them in any way. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER noted that the only people who had gaming permits who now cannot are political parties, political groups, and political candidates. VICE-CHAIR OGAN asked about the reporting methods that will be used to keep from co-mingling funds. His concern was if there is a reasonable reporting method for groups that make political contributions; for instance, separate checking accounts. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER explained that gaming proceeds have to be maintained in a separate account. Disbursements in that account must be reported to the Division of Gaming. If someone with a permit has a net return of $50,000, the report has to show where the $50,000 went. The intent is for charity, so the disbursement must be to charitable organizations or they risk being audited. The expenses allowed before this bill came into existence are the same. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said that once they passed this bill there will probably be new regulations drafted that would set out those parameters. There are accounting rules on how you do not co-mingle funds. She thought they might need to ask the department. Number 301 JEFF PRATHER, Acting Director of Charitable Gaming, Department of Revenue, came forward to answer questions about HB 44, and to explain the procedure used to record proceeds from gaming. Currently, they require all profits from gaming to be deposited in a separate bank account. Profits could be transferred from a gaming account to the organizations bank account, then donated to politicians or political parties. Consequently, they would have to implement a regulation, which allowed the department to examine the organizations operating accounts. This was to assure that the proceeds were not used for unintended purposes. REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS expressed curiosity about the percentage of the proceeds that actually go to the charities compared to the percentage used by the operators. MR. PRATHER replied that the operators often do not report their proceeds or fees to the department. Fees and expense categories such as rent, are hidden, and the department has not yet succeeded in getting them to report what they are actually making. In answer to Representative Robinsons question about a fiscal note, Mr. Prather said there is a zero fiscal note. Number 356 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON mentioned hearing from somewhere that the Governor will be establishing a committee to research issues regarding the amount of money going to charities. MR. PRATHER verified that which Representative Robinson heard, saying the Governor had established a charitable gaming task force to investigate the money going into charities. The first meeting of the task force will be March 16, 1995, and a final report is due to the Governor on May 16, 1995. Number 361 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER shared a comment, saying that this is one reason the subcommittee did not delve too deeply into the statute. The committees mission was to preclude contributions going to politicians from gaming proceeds, which they succeeded in doing. Number 376 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN asked for an at ease, and VICE-CHAIR OGAN allowed him a few minutes. Number 382 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER added for the record that the only people who will be excluded from having a gambling permit are political groups formed for the purpose of electing candidates. Political subdivisions can retain their permits for raising funds for their political entities. VICE-CHAIR OGAN pointed out that he received a letter from the Alaska State Home Builders Association whose concern was that they are 501-C and whether they would be ineligible to have charitable gaming permits. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said the original version of HB 44 limited the people who would qualify to get a permit. Except for political parties, the subcommittee did not altered that. Number 408 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said, for the record, she appreciated Representatives Ivan, Porter and James for their willingness to take another direction on this bill. She believes this takes care of the concern about what most legislators felt, and about the perception of politicians receiving gaming money. She appreciated the work the subcommittee did; it is now a better bill. Number 430 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved to accept the CS for HB 44, Version C, LS023-3, as the working document. There were no objections, so the motion passed. Then he moved that the committee move the CS for HB 44, the charitable gaming bill, with individual recommendations and fiscal note. Hearing no objection, the motion passed. HSTA - 02/21/95 HB 127 - 120-DAY JAIL: ASSAULT ON OFFICERS Number 450 BRUCE CAMPBELL from Representative Pete Kellys staff came forward to testify on HB 127 in Representative Kellys absence. Mr. Campbell read the Sponsor Statement for HB 127, as follows: An act increasing the minimum term of imprisonment for assaults of the fourth degree committed against a peace officer, fire fighter, correctional officer, emergency medical technician, paramedic, ambulance attendant, or other emergency responders. "It is the intent of this bill to enhance a serious tool for police officers and others on the front line. It will increase the severity of punishment for acts committed against a police officer while in the performance of official duties. "This bill sends a clear message to individuals that once the police arrive the fight must stop. Alaska is not sending in our `tag team blue' for the next round. Expanding the fracas to include a police officer will result in jail time. "This bill also discourages an officer from `engaging in a fair fight.' There is no reason for such a fight to continue, and this bill makes that quite clear. "Although initially intended as a tool for police, it has even more meaning when applied to individuals with even less training or expectation of dealing with persons physically. Volunteers responding to a medical emergency, or fire, are neither equipped nor trained to handle assault or violence directed against their persons." VICE-CHAIR OGAN announced that Tom Stern from the State Troopers was on-line to testify. Number 470 MAJOR TOM STEARNS, Deputy Director, Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public Safety, testified via teleconference from Anchorage in support of HB 127. He voiced support from the entire Division of State Troopers. Colonel Godfrey had asked him to voice the Division of State Troopers support of the bill. The Colonel had several conversations with public safety leaders across the state, including Chief of Police, John Newell from Sitka, also the President of the Alaska Association of the Chiefs of Police. They are very supportive of HB 127, as well. Number 487 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN asked a question concerning the Village Public Safety Officers. He wondered if they fit under the definition of peace officer in HB 127. MAJOR STEARNS said they are not considered police officers and would not fall under this; however, the department responds to every assault on Village Public Safety Officers and makes arrests for all assaults. He said, to answer a question put by Representative Robinson, that it is departments position when they charge someone with assault to bring it to the District Attorneys Office. Generally, the assault on an officer is prosecuted. VICE-CHAIR OGAN asked about the statistics on the amount of people charged, per year, for this type of crime. He also asked Major Stearn if he thought this legislation would help. Number 508 MAJOR STEARNS said the department tracks assaults and there are somewhere between 50 and 70 assaults on troopers lodged as complains annually. He said he would hope this legislation will help to reduce these crimes. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER congratulated Major Sterns on his appointment, then confirmed with him that Village Public Safety Officers (VPSO) are still considered peace officers. He said the bill defines peace officers, so they would be covered in the bill. MAJOR STEARNS responded to Vice-Chair Ogans question, about the difference between a fourth degree assault and a third degree assault, saying that fourth degree assault is a higher degree of danger and threat by instrument. Number 547 JOE DAMEKO, First Sergeant, Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public Safety, came before the committee to testify about a statute defining the various degrees of assault. He said the general difference between third degree and fourth degree assault is that the third degree assault is prosecuted as a felony. It is usually as a result of either a serious physical injury to the victim, or that a dangerous instrument or weapon was used against the victim. A third degree assault would also include an eminent fear of serious physical injury; for instance, if someone were to point a gun at a person and threaten to kill them. Fourth degree assaults are generally the punching, kicking, and the scratches that police officers often receive in the process of making an arrest. He said that assaults on peace officers are increasing, and most are alcohol related. Number 576 VICTOR GUNN, Deputy Chief, Fairbanks City Police Department, also offered support of HB 127 by telephone. He felt that higher penalties for assault will reduce attacks on police officers. Generally, people are aware that there is a minimum jail time for assaulting a police officer, and it is far above what they would get for assaulting an average citizen. The theory applies to capital crimes committed against police officers or correctional officers; if a person is willing to assault a representative of the publics peace, think of what they would do to someone else. That is what he bases his testimony on. An officer in uniform represents society, and when a person is willing to assault a police officer, he is willing to assault society. VICE-CHAIR OGAN shared that he is a fire fighter and they also get into difficult situations. He is glad to see fire fighters included in the bill. Number 648 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he was pleased to make the motion to pass HB 127 out of committee with individual recommendations. Hearing no objection, the motion passed. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON commented that she was for the bill and had no objections; however, she did not want anyone under the illusion that this bill will change anything. Even so, it is a good policy to change the law. HSTA - 02/21/95 HB 90 - CONVENING LEGISLATURE AFTER GOV ELECTION Number 643 REPRESENTATIVE BETTYE DAVIS came before the committee with her bill, HB 90. She submitted the following position statement: "The Knowles Administration supports HB 90. This bill would shift the beginning date of legislative sessions following gubernatorial elections by one day, in order to avoid having the opening day of the session on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. "Although the legislature often meets on other national holidays in the midst of the legislative session, in this instance all that is required to accommodate the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday is to move the start of the session by one day every four years. The Administration believes that this change would minimally impact legislature business, and would allow legislators, legislative staff and other state employees to appropriately honor and celebrate the birth of this great civil rights leader. In addition, this bill would result in some cost savings from a reduction in holiday overtime required to be paid to some employees who now must work on the holiday. "Alaska is geographically far removed from the heart of the civil rights movement in which Martin Luther King, Jr. Played such an important leadership role. Still, the rights of equality and freedom for all, which he advocated, are as central to the spirit of Alaska as to any state in the union. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS added that the fiscal note was included and that it would mean a $5,570 savings to the state. Number 677 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON made a motion to move HB 90 out of committee with individual recommendations. There was no discussion and no objection, so the motion passed. Vice-Chair Ogan added that it was a good bill, and a good way to honor a good American. HSTA - 02/21/95 HB 30 - SCHOOL DRESS CODES Number 699 REPRESENTATIVE BETTYE DAVIS, Prime sponsor of HB 30, said the bill passed in other states, and she has received letters from students about the right to choose what they wear. Representative Davis read one letter from a student in Togiak, Alaska, who wrote against any mandate that told them what they could wear. Many other students wrote letters against the bill, but after receiving more information, most of the students understood the reason for the bill. TAPE 95-19, SIDE A Number 001 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commented on the dress code issue, saying, if students wore uniforms, it might make them targets for drive-by shootings. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS had not heard of anything like that happening. California passed the bill and the state of California is where they could get that kind of information. Drive-by shootings may happen, but they normally are not caused by dress codes. She thought it would instill pride, and it would also alleviate peer pressure, especially for students from low income families and people in villages. REPRESENTATIVE IVAN was pleased about the letter from the student. The person was one of his constituents, and spoke of his position. Number 110 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS mentioned an informal dress code in his high school days. They wore light colored corduroy pants and all their friends would sign their names on the pants. The object was to never let your mother get a hold of those pants to wash them. Mothers were the only targets, or rather, we were the only targets for our mothers. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said there are so many things children are conscious of today that have to do with dress: Designer clothes, all which cost more than parents can afford. There are also kids stealing jackets and shoes. Number 142 VICE-CHAIR OGAN expressed that there was some questionable language in the bill, primarily about the necessity of the health and safety of students or teachers of a district. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS answered that it could protect teachers, since it would do away with colors and gang activity clothing being worn in the inner-city. There are problems in some districts. In Anchorage, they are having some drive-by shootings, and gang fights. They have identified many gangs. VICE-CHAIR OGAN said he had a problem giving school boards the authority to require their students to wear uniforms. Number 180 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS denied that the bill gives the school board authority to mandate anything. Rather, it will give the schools themselves the authority if they choose it. They cannot mandate anything. It is a choice to wear uniforms or not. Number 195 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON made a motion to move HB 30 out of committee with individual recommendations. She said that it goes to the HESS committee next, for another review. After a short recess, the committee decided the bill should remain in committee for further consideration. Representative Robinson retracted her motion and moved that the committee hold HB 30 in committee. There were no objections, so the motion passed. HSTA - 02/21/95 HB 130 - REGULATION ADOPTION PROCEDURES & REVIEW Number 230 BRUCE CAMPBELL, Legislative Aide to Representative Pete Kelly, spoke on behalf of Representative Kelly on HB 130. HB 130 is one of three bills on regulation reform, which matches with the other bills quite well, even though all three were independently drafted. He put a sponsor statement before the committee. Number 247 VICE-CHAIR OGAN spoke of another regulation reform bill now in a subcommittee, saying the Chairperson expressed an interest in referring this bill to that subcommittee for review. This is an extensive bill. Number 285 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said the Chair wanted the bill reviewed, as a whole, in subcommittee to see how it fits in with the picture. There are several options, and it might be that the subcommittee will wish to create one bill to send through, or perhaps it will decide to send one bill out and hold the other one. REPRESENTATIVE PETE KELLY arrived and gave a summary of what HB 130 is intended to accomplish. He said this bill is different from the other bill in the committee, and he could not be sure if they are mergeable. HB 130 is possibly a stop-gap measure for larger changes later. It is a system that can be set in place now, since it works with the present system. It is tweaking of the system rather than changing the system, or making a major or complete change. This bill attempts to reform regulations by doing two things: By empowering the Lieutenant Governor to do certain things, and requiring that he do certain things. It also goes to the regulation writing process and gives the agencies some guidelines while they are writing regulations. HB 130 attempts overall, to make elected officials accountable for the regulations that are written. Normally, legislators write the statutes, they go to the Governor, then they go to the agencies where they are written and then they are turned into regulations. They are finally given to the Lieutenant Governor who has no choice but to file those regulations whether they are good or bad. HB 130 attempts to put the legislature back in the loop of the regulation writing process without infringing on any separations of power. The Lieutenant Governor looks at the regulations and then has to turn draft regulations over to the legislative regulation review committee. That committee makes certain recommendations, they can call in expert testimony, they can weigh the public will through hearings, then they can turn them back to the Lieutenant Governor. The Lieutenant Governor can file the regulation or turn it back to agencies if it is determined that the regulation is not acceptable. It holds the official politically accountable. At this point in the process, if it is a bad regulation everyone is going to know about it. It is holding the Lieutenant Governor accountable, and it gives the legislative review committee an opportunity to stop bad legislation before it becomes law. Number 398 VICE-CHAIR OGAN offered a suggestion to get some visuals, charts and graphs to the subcommittee, and asked if Representative Kelly objected to the committee sending his bill to the subcommittee. Representative Kelly had no objection. ADJOURNMENT VICE-CHAIR OGAN adjourned the meeting at 10:06 a.m.