Legislature(1997 - 1998)

03/25/1997 08:07 AM STA

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
txt
              HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE                           
                          March 25, 1997                                       
                             8:07 a.m.                                         
                                                                               
                                                                               
 MEMBERS PRESENT                                                               
                                                                               
 Representative Jeannette James, Chair                                         
 Representative Ethan Berkowitz                                                
 Representative Kim Elton                                                      
 Representative Mark Hodgins                                                   
 Representative Ivan Ivan                                                      
 Representative Al Vezey                                                       
                                                                               
 MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                
                                                                               
 Representative Fred Dyson                                                     
                                                                               
 COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                            
                                                                               
 * HOUSE BILL NO. 200                                                          
 "An Act relating to subpoenas of the Administrative Regulation                
 Review Committee; and providing for an effective date."                       
                                                                               
      - HEARD AND HELD                                                         
                                                                               
 HOUSE BILL NO. 155                                                            
 "An Act relating to hearings before and authorizing fees for the              
 State Commission for Human Rights; and providing for an effective             
 date."                                                                        
                                                                               
      - MOVED CSHB 155(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                   
                                                                               
 HOUSE BILL NO. 78                                                             
 "An Act relating to the definition of certain state receipts; and             
 providing for an effective date."                                             
                                                                               
      - HEARD AND HELD                                                         
                                                                               
 HOUSE BILL NO. 83                                                             
 "An Act relating to commercial motor vehicle inspections; and                 
 providing for an effective date."                                             
                                                                               
      - MOVED CSHB 83(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                    
                                                                               
 HOUSE BILL NO. 143                                                            
 "An Act relating to the art in public places requirements for                 
 state-owned and state-leased buildings and facilities."                       
                                                                               
      - HEARD AND HELD                                                         
                                                                               
 * HOUSE BILL NO. 181                                                          
 "An Act relating to separate segregated funds for certain political           
 contributions from corporations and labor organizations."                     
                                                                               
      - HEARD AND HELD                                                         
                                                                               
 (* First public hearing)                                                      
                                                                               
 PREVIOUS ACTION                                                               
                                                                               
 BILL:  HB 200                                                                 
 SHORT TITLE: SUBPOENA POWER: ADMIN. REG. REVIEW COMMIT                        
 SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) JAMES                                           
                                                                               
 JRN-DATE      JRN-PG             ACTION                                       
 03/18/97       737    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 03/18/97       737    (H)   STATE AFFAIRS                                     
 03/25/97              (H)   STA AT  8:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
                                                                               
 BILL:  HB 155                                                                 
 SHORT TITLE: HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION FEES & HEARINGS                          
 SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR                                  
                                                                               
 JRN-DATE      JRN-PG             ACTION                                       
 02/24/97       443    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 02/24/97       443    (H)   STATES AFFAIRS, HES, FINANCE                      
 02/24/97       444    (H)   ZERO FISCAL NOTE (GOV)                            
 02/24/97       444    (H)   GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER                     
 03/11/97              (H)   STA AT  8:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 03/11/97              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                       
 03/13/97              (H)   STA AT  8:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 03/13/97              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                       
 03/20/97              (H)   STA AT  8:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 03/10/97              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                       
 03/22/97              (H)   STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
                                                                               
 BILL:  HB 78                                                                  
 SHORT TITLE: AMEND DEFINITION OF "PROGRAM RECEIPTS"                           
 SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR                                  
                                                                               
 JRN-DATE      JRN-PG             ACTION                                       
 01/16/97        88    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 01/16/97        88    (H)   STA, L&C, FINANCE                                 
 01/16/97        88    (H)   ZERO FISCAL NOTE (GOV\VARIOUS DEPTS)              
 01/16/97        88    (H)   GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER                     
 03/11/97              (H)   STA AT  8:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 03/11/97              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                       
 03/13/97              (H)   STA AT  8:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 03/13/97              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                       
 03/20/97              (H)   STA AT  8:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 03/20/97              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                       
 03/22/97              (H)   STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
                                                                               
 BILL:  HB 83                                                                  
 SHORT TITLE: COMMERCIAL VEHICLE INSPECTIONS                                   
 SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MARTIN                                          
                                                                               
 JRN-DATE      JRN-PG             ACTION                                       
 01/22/97       122    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 01/22/97       122    (H)   TRANSPORTATION, STATE AFFAIRS                     
 02/03/97              (H)   TRA AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 17                        
 02/03/97              (H)   MINUTE(TRA)                                       
 02/10/97              (H)   MINUTE(TRA)                                       
 02/12/97       306    (H)   TRA RPT  CS(TRA)  NT 3DP 2NR                      
 02/12/97       307    (H)   DP: SANDERS, KOOKESH, MASEK                       
 02/12/97       307    (H)   NR: ELTON, COWDERY                                
 02/12/97       307    (H)   ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DPS)                            
 03/11/97              (H)   STA AT  8:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 03/11/97              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                       
 03/13/97              (H)   STA AT  8:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 03/13/97              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                       
 03/15/97              (H)   STA AT 11:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 03/15/97              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                       
 03/22/97              (H)   STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
                                                                               
 BILL:  HB 143                                                                 
 SHORT TITLE: REPEAL ART IN PUBLIC PLACES REQUIREMENT                          
 SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) VEZEY, Hodgins                                  
                                                                               
 JRN-DATE      JRN-PG             ACTION                                       
 02/17/97       374    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 02/17/97       375    (H)   STATE AFFAIRS                                     
 03/20/97              (H)   STA AT  8:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 03/20/97              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                       
 03/22/97              (H)   STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 03/25/97       841    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): HODGINS                             
                                                                               
 BILL:  HB 181                                                                 
 SHORT TITLE: SEPARATE SEGREGATED FUNDS: POLIT. CONTRIB                        
 SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) VEZEY                                           
                                                                               
 JRN-DATE      JRN-PG             ACTION                                       
 03/07/97       583    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 03/07/97       584    (H)   STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY                          
 03/25/97              (H)   STA AT  8:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
                                                                               
 WITNESS REGISTER                                                              
                                                                               
 SARAH FELIX, Assistant Attorney General                                       
 Governmental Affairs Section                                                  
 Civil Division                                                                
 Department of Law                                                             
 P.O. Box 110300                                                               
 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300                                                     
 Telephone:  (907) 465-3600                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Provided testimony in opposition to HB 200.              
                                                                               
 PAULA HALEY, Executive Director                                               
 Alaska State Commission for Human Rights                                      
 800 "A" Street, Suite 204                                                     
 Anchorage, Alaska 99501-3669                                                  
 Telephone:  (907) 274-4692                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Provided testimony in support of HB 155.                 
                                                                               
 JAMES BALDWIN, Assistant Attorney General                                     
 Governmental Affairs Section                                                  
 Civil Division                                                                
 Department of Law                                                             
 P.O. Box 110300                                                               
 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300                                                     
 Telephone:  (907) 465-3600                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Provided testimony on HB 78.                             
                                                                               
 MIKE GREANY, Legislative Fiscal Analyst                                       
 Legislative Finance Division                                                  
 Legislative Agencies and Offices                                              
 P.O. Box 113200                                                               
 Juneau, Alaska 99811-3200                                                     
 Telephone:  (907) 465-3795                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Provided testimony on HB 78.                             
                                                                               
 MIKE FORD, Attorney                                                           
 Legislative Legal and Research Services                                       
 Legislative Affairs Agency                                                    
 130 Seward Street, Suite 409                                                  
 Juneau, Alaska 99801-2105                                                     
 Telephone:  (907) 465-2450                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Provided testimony on HB 83.                             
                                                                               
 FRANK DILLON, Executive Director                                              
 Alaska Trucking Association                                                   
 3443 Minnesota Drive                                                          
 Anchorage, Alaska 99503                                                       
 Telephone:  (907) 276-1149                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Provided testimony in support of HB 83.                  
                                                                               
 CAROLYN ROSEBERY                                                              
 Address not provided                                                          
 Cordova, Alaska 66574                                                         
 Telephone:  (907) 424-7355                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Provided testimony on HB 143.                            
                                                                               
 BARBARA SHORT, Art Teacher                                                    
 Fairbanks North Star Borough School District                                  
 520 5th Avenue                                                                
 Fairbanks, Alaska 99701                                                       
 Telephone:  (907) 452-2000 ext. 417                                           
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Provided testimony on HB 143.                            
                                                                               
 JUNE ROGERS                                                                   
 P.O. Box 72786                                                                
 Fairbanks, Alaska 99707                                                       
 Telephone:  (907) 456-6485                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Provided testimony on HB 143.                            
                                                                               
 BROOK MILES, Regulation of Lobbying                                           
 Alaska Public Offices Commission                                              
 Department of Administration                                                  
 P.O. Box 110222                                                               
 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0222                                                     
 Telephone:  (907) 465-4864                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Provided testimony on HB 181.                            
                                                                               
 ACTION NARRATIVE                                                              
                                                                               
 TAPE 97-33, SIDE A                                                            
 Number 0001                                                                   
                                                                               
 The House State Affairs Standing Committee was called to order by             
 Chair Jeannette James at 8:07 a.m.  Members present at the call to            
 order were Representatives James, Elton, Hodgins, Ivan and Vezey.             
 Representative Berkowitz arrived at 8:08 a.m.                                 
                                                                               
 HB 200 - SUBPOENA POWER: ADMIN. REG. REVIEW COMMIT                            
                                                                               
 The first order of business to come before the House State Affairs            
 Standing Committee was HB 200, "An Act relating to subpoenas of the           
 Administrative Regulation Review Committee; and providing for an              
 effective date."                                                              
                                                                               
 CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES, sponsor of HB 200, presented the bill.                 
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES asked that the committee members delete from the                  
 sponsor statement the sentence, "Every other similar Legislative              
 Council Committee has the power to force witnesses to testify." It            
 was not a correct statement; there were several other committees              
 that did not have the power as well.                                          
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES read the following sponsor statement into the record:             
                                                                               
 "HB 200 gives the Committee the power to subpoena unwilling and/or            
 uncooperative witnesses to Committee hearings.  If the Committee              
 intends to sort fact from fiction we need the tool of subpoena                
 power.                                                                        
                                                                               
 "We are not a democracy as is claimed, we are a regulatory                    
 bureaucracy! `We are from the government, and we are here to help             
 you.'  That statement brings chills to our constituents because the           
 statement that follows will be one dealing with regulations.  The             
 Committee is charged with the task of regulatory oversight, the               
 basic idea is to re-establish a democracy equally balanced between            
 the Executive, Legislative and the Judicial branches of government.           
                                                                               
 "There is no oversight of regulations by the Executive branch,                
 former administrations have tried, but have been unsuccessful.  It            
 is up to us, the Legislative branch to be the overviewer of the               
 regulations promulgated by the Statutes we make.                              
                                                                               
 "The Committee needs certain tools to operate, we have the                    
 statutory power to place witnesses under oath, the power to file              
 perjury charges, the power to require cooperation from public                 
 officials, and the power to annul regulations through statute.                
                                                                               
 "With the power of subpoena our tool kit will be complete.                    
                                                                               
 "If there are any questions please call me, or Walt Wilcox."                  
                                                                               
 Number 0239                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON asked Chair James whether there had been             
 any need so far to subpoena a person.                                         
                                                                               
 Number 0256                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES replied, "No."  However, some had not responded to the            
 requests.  The committee had not been going for very long either.             
                                                                               
 Number 0304                                                                   
                                                                               
 SARAH FELIX, Assistant Attorney General, Governmental Affairs                 
 Section, Civil Division, Department of Law, was the first person to           
 testify in Juneau.  The division was concerned mainly with the                
 provision of AS 24.20.455 (c) on page 2 - the enforcement of                  
 subpoena by arrest.  In the past, a similar procedure was used and            
 challenged in the 1985 Schultz v. Sundberg court case.                        
 Representative Sundberg claimed a violation of civil rights by                
 arrest and sued the state, as well as a number of individuals,                
 under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983.  One case went all the way to the Ninth            
 Circuit Court of Appeals.  Therefore, the division was concerned              
 about the possibility of costly litigation.                                   
                                                                               
 MS. FELIX further explained the division was concerned about the              
 practical problems that could result in the enforcement upon the              
 arrest.  The division imagined that the Sergeant At Arms would need           
 help with the arrest provision.  The sergeant would also probably             
 ask the troopers to enforce the arrest.  The troopers would not               
 have the immunity that the legislative staff would have relying on            
 the qualified executive branch immunity.  The troopers would also             
 probably want a court order before arresting someone.  The next               
 agency involved would probably be Corrections, which would also               
 probably want an order before locking someone up.                             
                                                                               
 MS. FELIX suggested deleting Section 24.20.455 (c) and inserting              
 the following language:                                                       
                                                                               
 "hold public hearings, administer oaths, issue subpoenas, compel              
 the attendance of witnesses and production of papers, books,                  
 accounts, documents, and testimony, and have the deposition of                
 witnesses taken in a manner prescribed by court rule or law for               
 taking dispositions in civil action;"                                         
                                                                               
 MS. FELIX explained the Legislative Council and the Legislative               
 Budget and Audit committees had the same provisions.                          
                                                                               
 Number 0575                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE MARK HODGINS asked Ms. Felix how the Office of the             
 Attorney General or the courts did it when they had a subpoena.               
 Was it similar to the provision she suggested adding?                         
                                                                               
 Number 0604                                                                   
                                                                               
 MS. FELIX replied that a subpoena was enforced by the court's                 
 contempt power.  A person would be held in contempt, with the                 
 opportunity to explain to the court why he or she disobeyed the               
 subpoena.  The court ruled based on the excuse.                               
                                                                               
 Number 0632                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Ms. Felix what the difference was                
 between AS 24.20.455 (c) and the provision that she suggested                 
 adding.                                                                       
                                                                               
 Number 0644                                                                   
                                                                               
 MS. FELIX replied that AS 24.20.455 (c) provided for a summary                
 arrest, while the other provision provided for an opportunity to be           
 heard before the person was arrested and taken to prison.                     
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Ms. Felix whether it would still have            
 the same compelling power.                                                    
                                                                               
 MS. FELIX replied, "Yes."  There were a number of agencies that               
 issued an administrative subpoena.  It was not to be taken lightly.           
                                                                               
 Number 0702                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Ms. Felix what would be the                      
 consequences if someone disregarded the provision that she                    
 suggested adding.                                                             
                                                                               
 MS. FELIX replied that a consequence would be the penalties for               
 contempt, such as jail time until the order was obeyed.                       
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Ms. Felix whether the process would be           
 at the discretion of the committee.                                           
                                                                               
 MS. FELIX replied it would be at the discretion of the judge and              
 the judicial system.                                                          
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Ms. Felix what type of time sequence             
 it would take from finding contempt to compelling the person to               
 talk before the committee, for example.                                       
                                                                               
 Number 0728                                                                   
                                                                               
 MS. FELIX replied that she did not know the time line.  It would              
 depend on the court and its case load.  She would hope that the               
 court would take the short session of the legislature into                    
 consideration.                                                                
                                                                               
 Number 0762                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY asked Ms. Felix what the outcome of the               
 Schultz v. Sundberg court case was.                                           
                                                                               
 MS. FELIX replied that the state got off.  The state was found to             
 not be liable.  The legislators received immunity, and the                    
 executive branch employees received qualified immunity.                       
                                                                               
 Number 0790                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Ms. Felix whether the legislature had              
 the authority to issue a subpoena.                                            
                                                                               
 Number 0797                                                                   
                                                                               
 MS. FELIX replied, "I think so."  She reiterated that the division            
 was not disputing the subpoena but rather the summary of arrest.              
                                                                               
 Number 0863                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ asked Ms. Felix whether the                    
 provision she suggested would keep the subpoena within the due                
 process provisions.                                                           
                                                                               
 MS. FELIX replied, "Yes."  The provision would not allow for                  
 summarily arresting a person without giving him or her a notice and           
 an opportunity to be heard, shielding the legislature from the                
 constitutional claims as in the Schultz v. Sundberg case.                     
                                                                               
 Number 0886                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ further stated, to answer the earlier                
 question of Representative Hodgins, that when someone was arrested,           
 he or she had to be brought before a judge or a magistrate within             
 a very short period of time.  Generally, that type of proceeding              
 moved quickly.                                                                
                                                                               
 Number 0908                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Ms. Felix whether she knew what the            
 cost would be associated with the provision she suggested.                    
                                                                               
 Number 0915                                                                   
                                                                               
 MS. FELIX replied, "I do not."  She suggested getting that type of            
 information from the troopers, for example.                                   
                                                                               
 Number 0941                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES said she hoped there would not be any cost associated             
 and that once given the subpoena power, it would probably not have            
 to be used.  As Chairman of the House State Affairs Standing                  
 Committee, she could move the case over to that committee, where              
 she did have subpoena power.  She believed, however, that the                 
 Administrative Regulation Review Joint Committee should have the              
 same power.                                                                   
                                                                               
 Number 0985                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ explained that he had issued thousands of            
 subpoenas, and he had wished that the people had paid attention to            
 them, but they generally did not.  There were times when the weight           
 of the law was necessary.                                                     
                                                                               
 Number 1003                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES replied that when he gave a subpoena, it was under a              
 different type of case law than in the legislature.  The committee            
 would not subpoena anybody outside of the government.  If anybody             
 in the government would refuse, then there would probably be more             
 problems than just refusing the subpoena.                                     
                                                                               
 Number 1029                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ replied that the subpoena power did not              
 apply to federal employees.                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES said the committee completely worked within the                   
 framework of regulations written by the Administration.  Therefore,           
 the subpoena would be against those that had information or                   
 documents relating to regulations - the Administration.  She did              
 not think the Administration would deny a subpoena.                           
                                                                               
 Number 1084                                                                   
                                                                               
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated that there was nothing that limited the           
 subpoena power.  He imagined that a person subject to regulations,            
 for example, would need to be subpoenaed.                                     
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked Chair James whether the subpoena power             
 that she had was similar to the subpoena power in AS 24.20.201                
 (a)(2).                                                                       
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES replied that she did not know.  It was the opinion of             
 the leadership that the committee already had the subpoena power.             
 Therefore, the committee chair did not just have the power; he or             
 she needed higher authority as well.                                          
                                                                               
 Number 1169                                                                   
                                                                               
 MS. FELIX replied that AS 24.25.010 referred to the chairman of a             
 committee when authorized to do so by a majority of the membership            
 of the committee and with the concurrence of the president or the             
 speaker, or with the concurrence of the House or the Senate.  The             
 Legislative Council Committee had the same type of subpoena power             
 as in AS 24.20.201 (a)(2).                                                    
                                                                               
 Number 1201                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES stated that she did not have any objection to the                 
 suggestion made by Ms. Felix.  However, she wanted to discuss it              
 with the drafter.                                                             
                                                                               
 Number 1214                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Ms. Felix whether she envisioned               
 that judicial services would be serving the subpoenas.                        
                                                                               
 MS. FELIX said probably.  The legislature would probably need some            
 sort of assistance to serve the subpoenas.  It needed to be looked            
 at further, however.                                                          
                                                                               
 Number 1267                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES announced she would take the suggestions of Ms. Felix             
 to the drafter.  The bill would be held over until Thursday, March            
 27, 1997.                                                                     
                                                                               
 HB 155 - HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION FEES & HEARINGS                              
                                                                               
 The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs             
 Standing Committee was HB 155, "An Act relating to hearings before            
 and authorizing fees for the State Commission for Human Rights; and           
 providing for an effective date."                                             
                                                                               
 Number 1312                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES explained there was a committee substitute (0-GH0045\E,           
 Lauterbach, 3/22/97).  It added the word "educational" to line 13,            
 page 1.                                                                       
                                                                               
 Number 1328                                                                   
                                                                               
 PAULA HALEY, Executive Director, Alaska State Commission for Human            
 Rights, was the first person to testify via teleconference in                 
 Anchorage.  She did not have a copy of the committee substitute in            
 front of her.  She was able to get letters to all of the committee            
 members answering some of their questions.  In the letters, she               
 included the fact that the commission would not be opposed to                 
 reinserting the words "education" and "training" in front of the              
 word "services," in AS 18.80.060(b)(4).  She asked Chair James                
 whether that was what the committee substituted proposed.                     
                                                                               
 Number 1358                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES replied that the committee substitute only added the              
 word "educational".  She believed the word "educational" also                 
 included the meaning of training.                                             
                                                                               
 MS. HALEY said she agreed.                                                    
                                                                               
 Number 1405                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ moved to adopt the proposed committee                
 substitute (0-GH0045\E, Lauterbach, 3/22/97) as a working document.           
 There was no objection; the committee substitute was so adopted.              
                                                                               
 Number 1425                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY moved that HB 155, as amended, move from the             
 committee with individual recommendations and the attached zero               
 fiscal note(s).  There was no objection; CSHB 155(STA) moved from             
 the House State Affairs Standing Committee.                                   
                                                                               
 HB 78 - AMEND DEFINITION OF "PROGRAM RECEIPTS"                                
                                                                               
 The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs             
 Standing Committee was HB 78, "An Act relating to the definition of           
 certain state receipts; and providing for an effective date."                 
                                                                               
 Number 1550                                                                   
                                                                               
 JAMES BALDWIN, Assistant Attorney General, Governmental Affairs               
 Section, Civil Division, Department of Law, was the first person to           
 testify in Juneau.  The purpose of the bill was to establish in the           
 budget the program receipts as their own funding sources to provide           
 an incentive for agencies to engage in revenue generating                     
 activities that would finance state governmental operations.  The             
 funding sources would not be considered a part of the unrestricted            
 general fund.  The idea was to emphasize that these activities                
 would receive more favorable budget treatment.  Mr. Baldwin cited             
 an example whereby the Department of Law discovered that processing           
 judgments was beneficial to the department.                                   
                                                                               
 MR. BALDWIN further explained there were allegations that the bill            
 could create a dedicated fund.  However, the statutes addressed in            
 the bill made it very clear that the money would not be dedicated.            
 In other words, the power of the legislature was not restricted to            
 appropriating the money to the purpose designated in law.  That was           
 why they were referred to as "designated program receipts".  The              
 statute generally indicated that the legislature "may" appropriate            
 the money.  It was not required by law; it was a statement of                 
 intent by the legislature which almost always was honored.  Mr.               
 Baldwin cited the Marine Highway Fund as an example.  The bill,               
 therefore, would have the effect of a separate funding source in              
 the budget.  It also recognized another type of funding source -              
 corporate receipts.  The bill also provided for the receipts of               
 test marketing programs such as the fisheries.                                
                                                                               
 Number 1773                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES stated her biggest concern was that these programs                
 were, currently, kept separate.  She was also concerned about the             
 practice of companies paying a large amount of money to speed up              
 the permitting process, as well as the Governor's concept of "open            
 for business".  In addition, she wondered who should pay the                  
 government to provide services - the big companies?                           
                                                                               
 TAPE 97-33, SIDE B                                                            
 Number 0001                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES asked who would take care of the little guy who could             
 not afford to speed up the permitting process.  She wondered why              
 the collection of the judgments was not already being done, because           
 it was the job of the department.  She asked:  Why would it only              
 consider doing the job if the money stayed in the department?  She            
 said this was an attitude about government that she did not want to           
 go towards.                                                                   
                                                                               
 Number 0034                                                                   
                                                                               
 MR. BALDWIN replied that the department was largely funded by the             
 general fund; when there was a budget cut, it was the area that               
 received the most scrutiny, requiring a shift of resources to areas           
 of the greatest need.  There were also areas that generated                   
 revenues but were not very glamorous.  Therefore, by having that              
 revenue source available, the department could devote resources               
 away from the other general fund activities.                                  
                                                                               
                                                                               
 MR. BALDWIN further stated that there was a statute that said the             
 department could not charge the public for the provision of a                 
 normal government service unless authorized by law.  Therefore, the           
 control rested with the legislature.  The bill would not change               
 that either.  The bill controlled the development of the program              
 receipts as a funding source for activities that were sustaining              
 and providing revenue for the state treasury.  Program receipts               
 should not be held to the same standards as other unrestricted                
 general fund activities that were viewed differently by the                   
 legislature.                                                                  
                                                                               
 Number 0165                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Baldwin whether it would be possible for the            
 Department of Law to ask for authorization from the legislature for           
 the collection of the judgments.                                              
                                                                               
 Number 0186                                                                   
                                                                               
 MR. BALDWIN replied that the request would convert general fund               
 money into contractual money.                                                 
                                                                               
 Number 0195                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES replied that the program receipts were still general              
 funds.                                                                        
                                                                               
 Number 0207                                                                   
                                                                               
 MR. BALDWIN replied that general funds were what the legislature              
 said they were.  They were decided and defined by law.  He said we            
 did not want to create a designation of the money by law, taking              
 away the power of the legislature.  He cited the court case of                
 Salmon v. Hickel that validated the approach.                                 
                                                                               
 Number 0267                                                                   
                                                                               
 MIKE GREANY, Legislative Fiscal Analyst, Legislative Finance                  
 Division, Legislative Agencies and Offices, was the next person to            
 testify in Juneau.                                                            
                                                                               
 Number 0277                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Greany why the bill was needed and what the             
 benefits were.                                                                
                                                                               
 Number 0283                                                                   
                                                                               
 MR. GREANY replied that from a budgetary standpoint, it was a                 
 policy call that the legislature would have to make.  It was a                
 question of how budget sources should be characterized in the                 
 budget.  When the Legislative Finance Division created a general              
 appropriation bill, it contained three columns:  general funds,               
 other funds and total funds.  House Bill 78 allowed for the funds             
 from the program receipts now in the general funds to be moved into           
 the "other funds" column.  The funds would not be counted as state            
 funds or as caps.                                                             
                                                                               
 MR. GREANY further stated that the framers of the constitution                
 intended that all of the fees and taxes would be on the table for             
 the legislature to appropriate as it saw fit.  At statehood, there            
 were approximately two dozen different funding sources.  Now, there           
 are 70, and each fund had a good reason for being created.  The               
 constitutional budget reserve issue was a wake-up call because it             
 forced the sorting of the funds available.                                    
                                                                               
 MR. GREANY said he was not arguing against the bill.  He saw good             
 reasons for it.  It was a way of keeping certain program receipts             
 out of the budgetary discussions.  The Marine Highway Fund, for               
 example, was swept at the end of each fiscal year to meet the                 
 Constitutional Budget Reserve (CBR) repayment provisions.  There              
 was also the provision to restore the funds back into the program.            
 It was a good business practice as many private sector businesses             
 practiced.                                                                    
                                                                               
 Number 0746                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES replied that this was not a private business; this was            
 government.  She asked Mr. Greany whether there were three columns            
 in the budget currently.                                                      
                                                                               
 MR. GREANY replied that for appropriation purposes, there were only           
 "general funds" and "other funds" that were broken down further.              
 For example, there were the pure general fund, the general fund               
 match, and the general fund program receipts that were broken down            
 even further.  The Administration about two years ago took the                
 general fund program receipts and carved out the designated                   
 portion.  Right now, the designated program receipts were still               
 part of the general fund.  The bill would take the designated                 
 general fund program receipts and point to other funds.                       
                                                                               
 Number 0852                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES stated that the legislature was cutting the budget                
 based on the general fund, with which she did not agree.  She asked           
 Mr. Greany how the bill would affect the bottom line of the budget.           
                                                                               
 Number 0924                                                                   
                                                                               
 MR. GREANY replied that it would depend on how the legislature                
 chose to view the budget.  Some believed that every fund type                 
 should be scrutinized, even federal funds.  The biggest scrutiny              
 had been over the general funds.  However, more were now looking at           
 the total budget.  Therefore, by identifying different funding                
 sources, they could be tracked separately.                                    
                                                                               
 Number 1031                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated that the letter from the Governor dated           
 January 16, 1997, asserted that the bill would not sacrifice fiscal           
 information or legislative prerogative.  The testimony of Mr.                 
 Greany almost indicated that the bill would preclude legislative              
 prerogative on how the program receipts could be spent.                       
                                                                               
 Number 1064                                                                   
                                                                               
 MR. GREANY replied that that was not his intent.  It was a matter             
 of how the funds would be tracked and where they would appear in              
 the appropriation bill.                                                       
                                                                               
 Number 1089                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked Mr. Greany, whether the receipts from a            
 test fishery would be identified as a program receipt, then                   
 appropriated through the appropriation process.                               
                                                                               
 MR. GREANY said yes, it could be appropriated for any other                   
 purpose.                                                                      
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked Mr. Greany:  If the bill provided for a            
 way to show that if the receipts were cut, did it not affect the              
 budget gap?  In addition, the bill would provide a way of showing             
 that money did not need to be cut in another area to make up for              
 the growth of receipts.                                                       
                                                                               
 Number 1189                                                                   
                                                                               
 MR. GREANY replied that it depended on how the fiscal gap was                 
 defined.  Was it defined in terms of general funds or in terms of             
 the entire state budget?  The fiscal gap up to this point was                 
 looked at in terms of the general fund only.  The bill would take             
 the designated program receipts out of the fiscal gap.                        
                                                                               
 Number 1313                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated that any governmental service had to              
 meet a market test from those that paid for the service, unlike a             
 general fund revenue.  If a segment of the economy was willing to             
 pay for a service, it met the market test.  Therefore, if a receipt           
 was taken away, it would hurt the people willing to pay for it.  He           
 described general fund dollars as those that were coming through              
 the tax receipts.                                                             
                                                                               
 Number 1381                                                                   
                                                                               
 MR. GREANY replied that that was the philosophy that the dedicated            
 fund states operated under.  Oregon's highway dedicated fund was              
 established to fund its Department of Transportation.  The                    
 constitutional framers rejected that type of model, however, for              
 Alaska.  In addition, Mr. Greany wondered whether the money from              
 the motor vehicle services was a user fee or a tax, for example.              
 Therefore, should it be used as a dedicated fund or as a general              
 fund?  It had been characterized as a general fund, but it was                
 special because it had a program receipt designation.  The division           
 took in more money than it spent, and the rest went into the                  
 general fund.                                                                 
                                                                               
 Number 1553                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES announced she would hold the bill in the committee to             
 think about it further.                                                       
                                                                               
 HB 83 - COMMERCIAL VEHICLE INSPECTIONS                                        
                                                                               
 The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs             
 Standing Committee was HB 83, "An Act relating to commercial motor            
 vehicle inspections; and providing for an effective date."                    
                                                                               
 Number 1586                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY explained the committee members had before               
 them a committee substitute (0-LS0384/P, Ford, 3/24/97).  The first           
 major change was a result of Executive Order 98.  The bill now                
 addressed Title 19 instead of Title 28.                                       
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY explained that Section 3 adopted 49 C.F.R. 396           
 and the provisions that existed on October 31, 1996.  It also                 
 clarified the terms "interstate" and "intrastate" to mean the same            
 thing.                                                                        
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY explained that Section 4 removed a criminal              
 penalty and inserted a civil penalty with a fine of $20,000.  It              
 did not take away the ability of the troopers to charge a criminal            
 penalty for endangering the life of another person, however.                  
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY explained that Section 5 increased the penalty           
 from $300 to $500 for a safety violation.                                     
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY explained that Section 6 provided for an                 
 affirmative defense to prosecution under federal law because                  
 federal law changed faster than state law creating a conflict.                
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY explained that Section 7 defined the term                
 "commercial motor vehicle" so that it was synonymous with the                 
 federal law.                                                                  
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY explained that Section 8 repealed existing               
 statutes.                                                                     
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY explained that Section 9 gave a July 1, 1997,            
 effective date.                                                               
                                                                               
 Number 1804                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Representative Vezey whether Section           
 4 also encompassed AS 19.10.365 in Section 5.                                 
                                                                               
 Number 1833                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied that the civil penalty would not                 
 require due process.                                                          
                                                                               
 TAPE 97-34, SIDE A                                                            
 Number 0010                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that there was a new law that                 
 indicated anything over a $250 fine could entitle a person to a               
 jury trial.                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied that he was aware of what                        
 Representative Berkowitz was talking about.  There was ample                  
 evidence in state law where $500 was a reasonable ceiling, however.           
 The law said a "maximum" of $500.  Not all violations would be                
 $500.  Typically, the schedule ranged from $50 to $300.  The                  
 statute needed to be rewritten; therefore, the maximum penalty was            
 raised.                                                                       
                                                                               
 Number 0116                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated Section 4 addressed AS 19.10.310                  
 through AS 19.10.399, and Section 5 addressed AS 19.10.365.  There            
 appeared to be a conflict.                                                    
                                                                               
 Number 0180                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied that AS 19.10.310 through AS 19.10.399           
 covered a broader area than AS 19.10.365.  If a person was guilty             
 of a leaky air line, for example, the authorities would not try to            
 prosecute under Section 4.  In addition, Section 5 addressed a list           
 of specific mechanical items that had to be working to operate the            
 vehicle legally, whereas Section 4 addressed the failure to                   
 implement a safety inspection program.                                        
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES called on Mike Ford, drafter of the bill, to answer               
 some of the questions.                                                        
                                                                               
 Number 0281                                                                   
                                                                               
 MIKE FORD, Attorney, Legislative Legal and Research Services,                 
 Legislative Affairs Agency, testified that the conflict was on line           
 22, page 2, "and except as provided in (b) of this section, a".               
 There was also an existing misdemeanor penalty in AS 19.45.002.               
 There were no conflicts.                                                      
                                                                               
 Number 0336                                                                   
                                                                               
 FRANK DILLON, Executive Director, Alaska Trucking Association,                
 testified via teleconference from Anchorage.  The industry                    
 supported the revisions to the bill discussed by Representative               
 Vezey, and they would appreciate action taken on the bill.                    
                                                                               
 Number 0370                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Representative Vezey whether                   
 Sergeant Brown signed off on the revisions to the bill.                       
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied, "Yes."                                          
                                                                               
 Number 0412                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY moved that the committee substitute (0-                  
 LS0384/P, Ford, 3/24/97) be adopted.  There was no objection; the             
 committee substitute was so adopted.                                          
                                                                               
 Number 0462                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY moved that HB 84, as amended, move from the              
 committee with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal             
 note(s).  There was no objection; CSHB 84(STA) was so moved from              
 the House State Affairs Standing Committee.                                   
                                                                               
 HB 143 - REPEAL ART IN PUBLIC PLACES REQUIREMENT                              
                                                                               
 The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs             
 Standing Committee was HB 143, "An Act relating to the art in                 
 public places requirements for state-owned and state-leased                   
 buildings and facilities."                                                    
                                                                               
 Number 0556                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES announced that she had closed the public testimony.               
 However, because there were only four people that wanted to testify           
 today, she would open it up again.  She called upon Shannon                   
 Planchon, Grant Administrator, Alaska State Council on the Arts, to           
 testify via teleconference from Anchorage; however, Ms. Planchon              
 said she was there to answer questions only.                                  
                                                                               
 Number 0668                                                                   
                                                                               
 CAROLYN ROSEBERY testified via teleconference from Cordova.  Her              
 life had been incredibly enriched by the art that she had found.              
 It had taken her 41 years to find that art.  In Cordova, she had              
 been exposed to art in the schools and began to discover her own              
 gift and abilities.  "I think I might be dead now if I hadn't                 
 discovered those gifts," she said.  Her daughter was a National               
 Merit Scholar and had chosen to become an artist; she was                     
 graduating this year from the University of Alaska Fairbanks with             
 a degree in art.  There would never be enough art in the world                
 because it came from one's spirit as a human being.  She asked:  Do           
 we have to start over to reinvent the wheel?  There were many                 
 talented kids in Cordova, and the community had nothing to work               
 with.  There was no support; people were afraid of art because it             
 brought out the real self.                                                    
                                                                               
 Number 0929                                                                   
                                                                               
 BARBARA SHORT, Art Teacher, Fairbanks North Star Borough School               
 District, testified via teleconference from Fairbanks.  She was               
 also the percent-for-art program person in the schools.  She said             
 they now had 20 schools that had wonderful art installed that was             
 being enjoyed on a daily basis by a large number of student,                  
 teachers, parents and community members.  The impact of the                   
 percent-for-art in the community had been really strong.  Every               
 year there was a bill opposing the percent-for-art program and                
 every year the school district drew up a resolution to oppose the             
 bill.  The resolution was not done yet; therefore, she read a                 
 resolution from 1995 to the committee members.                                
                                                                               
 MS. SHORT asked Representative Vezey why he wanted to eliminate the           
 percent-for-art program, when schools in his area were just now               
 getting a change to get at it.  And how did his bill benefit                  
 anybody in the state?                                                         
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY, sponsor, replied that the bill was not about            
 funding art.  He was the only member of the Alaska State                      
 Legislature that had actually worked on a direct appropriation for            
 art.  The bill was about a formula program that drove state                   
 spending, reducing the accountability and responsibility of the               
 legislature.  It was not about supporting the arts.                           
                                                                               
 Number 1135                                                                   
                                                                               
 JUNE ROGERS was the next person to testify via teleconference in              
 Fairbanks.  Last week she sent several messages to the legislators            
 on HB 143.  In her previous comments, she'd referred to a Request             
 for Proposals (RFP) for the Crawford School on Eielson Air Force              
 Base.  The art requested and commemorated the person for whom the             
 building was dedicated.  This type of commemoration was positive              
 because it was based on respect for the school, the achievers, and            
 the leaders.  Art in public buildings was a subtle and powerful               
 tool.  Time and time again, studies had shown that young people who           
 had the opportunity to be schooled in the arts were capable of more           
 concentrated thoughts, were more creative in problem solving, and             
 had a better understanding of other studies.  In addition, art in             
 public buildings was an investment that utilized the state's                  
 resources, its raw materials and the talents of its people.                   
                                                                               
 MS. ROGERS said the resulting product became part of the                      
 infrastructure that helped the visitors understand the culture of             
 Alaska.  The value of the program became more evident with each               
 passing year.  Alaskans and "Fairbankians" were proud people and              
 eager to show the world who they are, who they were, and who they             
 stood for, which the art reflected.  In addition, the 1-percent-              
 for-art projects constituted an "open museum" because they were               
 accessible to all of the community members.  This approach was less           
 costly to administer than a full-scale facility necessary to house            
 a museum or gallery.  At one time, libraries were not thought to be           
 necessary for the populace.  And now it was hard to find a                    
 community that did not have a public library.                                 
                                                                               
 MS. ROGERS said visual art is as necessary and as valuable to our             
 culture, and should be just as available, as books in a library.              
 There is no better way to realize the value of the state's dollar             
 than by investing it in projects that touch all walks of life,                
 chronicle an era, promote understanding of a culture, advance                 
 education, enhance the beauty and help attract tourists.  The 1-              
 percent-for-art program is a premium investment with a high rate of           
 return.                                                                       
                                                                               
 Number 1313                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES thanked Ms. Rogers for her presentation that was sent             
 to her on the art in the Crawford Elementary School.                          
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES announced the public testimony was closed.  She said              
 the bill would be held in the committee.                                      
                                                                               
 HB 181 - SEPARATE SEGREGATED FUNDS: POLIT. CONTRIB                            
                                                                               
 The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs             
 Standing Committee was HB 181, "An Act relating to separate                   
 segregated funds for certain political contributions from                     
 corporations and labor organizations."                                        
                                                                               
 Number 1356                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY, sponsor, explained that it was just ruled in            
 the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Michigan AFL-CIO v. Miller              
 that it was a constitutional right of a legislature to impose this            
 type of bill.  The subject of the bill was financing political                
 activities without the consent of the person contributing the                 
 money.  The bill addressed Title 15.13 and set it up so that                  
 political contributions had to be made out of segregated funds that           
 were voluntarily contributed.  He reiterated that the wording had             
 been presented before the court and had been upheld.                          
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Chair James whether there would be             
 more testimony.                                                               
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES indicated there would be if somebody wanted to testify.           
                                                                               
 Number 1454                                                                   
                                                                               
 BROOK MILES, Regulation of Lobbying, Alaska Public Offices                    
 Commission (APOC), Department of Administration, was the first                
 person to testify in Juneau.  The APOC did not object to the                  
 concept of the bill, but it did have some concerns over the current           
 legislative measure.                                                          
                                                                               
 MS. MILES explained that the APOC was concerned that the reader               
 would misinterpret the prohibitions in Section 1 to Section 4, and            
 she suggested deleting the sections entirely.                                 
                                                                               
 MS. MILES explained that the APOC recommended the following                   
 language in AS 15.13.160:  "Separate segregated funds cannot                  
 contribute to candidates or groups that are not parties or ballot             
 measure groups."                                                              
                                                                               
 Number 1595                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES asked Representative Vezey whether the separate                   
 segregated fund was made by voluntary donations and gave the                  
 authority for the money to go into a segregated fund, or whether it           
 was the segregated fund that made the donations.                              
                                                                               
 Number 1651                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he'd have to go back and check the court            
 definition that the bill was following.  The funds were not from              
 groups.  They were not voluntary donations.  They were used for               
 political purposes.                                                           
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES asked Representative Vezey to define the funds a little           
 bit more.                                                                     
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he'd have to do more research to                    
 determine what the courts were defining as a segregated fund.  The            
 bill required a separation of funds, and if the funds were going to           
 be used for political contributions, then they would have to be               
 voluntary contributions.                                                      
                                                                               
 Number 1741                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Representative Vezey whether the               
 term was defined in the Michigan court case.                                  
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied, "Yes."                                          
                                                                               
 Number 1753                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES stated that she understood the intent of the piece of             
 legislation.  She wondered, however, whether the money that went              
 into the segregated fund was voluntary and whether the money that             
 wasn't voluntarily contributed went someplace else.                           
                                                                               
 Number 1885                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied that Section 6 defined a separate                
 segregated fund as monies collected that were not voluntarily                 
 contributed - corporate or union proceeds, for example.  The funds            
 could be contributed to activities related to politics, but they              
 could not be contributed to a candidate or to a ballot proposition.           
                                                                               
 Number 1946                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES replied that campaign finance reform last year allowed            
 for only individuals to contribute to groups.  She wondered,                  
 therefore, whether a mandatory deduction could go to a group and              
 then the group could contribute.  In addition, the money that went            
 to the group had to be voluntarily, and not mandatorily,                      
 contributed.                                                                  
                                                                               
 Number 1977                                                                   
                                                                               
 MS. MILES replied that the bill required that the funds be                    
 voluntary contributions.                                                      
                                                                               
 MS. MILES said the APOC was also concerned that there was not a               
 specific definition of a separate segregated fund.  The APOC                  
 recommended the following language in AS 15.13.400:  "The separate            
 segregated fund means two or more individuals who affirmatively and           
 voluntarily consent to make campaign contributions jointly through            
 a payroll deduction plan, administered and controlled by a union,             
 profit, or non-profit corporation of which the individuals are                
 members, officer, stock holders, or employees".                               
                                                                               
 Number 2026                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES said the suggested language by the APOC indicated that            
 an individual could not contribute to candidates or groups that               
 were not parties or ballot measure groups, but they could                     
 contribute to parties or ballot measure groups.                               
                                                                               
 MS. MILES replied, "Right."                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES said she thought they could not contribute at all if              
 they were segregated funds.  She thought the segregated funds were            
 for those that did not voluntarily contribute funds.  The suggested           
 language indicated that a voluntary contribution could go towards             
 parties or ballot measure groups.  The segregated fund contained              
 the "voluntary" and not the "involuntary" funds.                              
                                                                               
 MS. MILES replied, "Correct."                                                 
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES asked Representative Vezey what happened to the                   
 involuntary funds.                                                            
                                                                               
 Number 2080                                                                   
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied that under AS 15.13, we recused those            
 from political activities last year.                                          
                                                                               
 Number 2092                                                                   
                                                                               
 MS. MILES replied that those would still be considered                        
 contributions from individuals to a group.  In other words, they              
 would be political action committee (PAC) accounts.                           
                                                                               
 Number 2134                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES said that was the problem.  "I don't think we've solved           
 the problem here," she added.                                                 
                                                                               
 MS. MILES said those were still individuals contributing to a                 
 group.                                                                        
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES announced the bill needed to be worked on.  "I don't              
 think it does what you think it does," she said.                              
                                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied, "I believe it does do what I think it           
 does."  He said he'd bring more information to the committee                  
 members because he did not know the definition of separate                    
 segregated funds.  The definition was from the Sixth Circuit Court            
 of Appeals.  It was well defined; the APOC simply did not agree               
 with the legal drafter.                                                       
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES replied that they did not agree because it was not                
 perfectly clear.  She needed to study the bill further.  She agreed           
 with the concept that money which would go to a group that                    
 contributed to a candidate or party should not be taken                       
 involuntarily from individuals.  The contributors needed to know              
 where their money went, and if they weren't in favor of where it              
 went, then it shouldn't be mandated.  It was hard to believe that             
 anybody would disagree with that premise.                                     
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES announced the bill would be held in the committee                 
 today.                                                                        
                                                                               
                                                                               
 ADJOURNMENT                                                                   
                                                                               
 Number 2210                                                                   
                                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES adjourned the House State Affairs Standing Committee              
 meeting at 9:50 a.m.                                                          
                                                                               

Document Name Date/Time Subjects