Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/07/1995 08:05 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 7, 1995
8:05 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jeannette James, Chair
Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chair
Representative Joe Green
Representative Ivan Ivan
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Caren Robinson
Representative Ed Willis
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SJR 7:Relating to mandates imposed on states by the federal
government.
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
*HB 17:"An Act relating to the titles that describe the two
principal executive officers of electric and telephone
cooperatives."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
*HB 13:"An Act requiring persons authorized to make or incur
political campaign expenditures before filing for
nomination to office and groups acting on behalf of them
to file certain election campaign financial disclosure
reports."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
*HB 32:"An Act relating to administrative proceedings involving
a determination of eligibility for a permanent fund
dividend or authority to claim a dividend on behalf of
another."
HEARD AND HELD
HB 44:"An Act providing that a political use is not an
authorized use of charitable gaming proceeds; prohibiting
the contribution of charitable gaming proceeds to
candidates for certain public offices, their campaign
organizations, or to political groups; providing that a
political groups is not a qualified organization for
purposes of charitable gaming; relating to what is a
qualified organization for the purpose of charitable
gaming permitting; and providing for a effective date."
HEARD AND HELD
*HB 106:"An Act relating to art in public places requirements and
the art in public places fund."
SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HJR 20:Relating to unfunded federal mandates and the Conference
of the States.
SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HJR 4:Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of
Alaska authorizing the use of the initiative to amend the
Constitution of the State of Alaska.
SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
(*First public hearing)
WITNESS REGISTER
SENATOR ROBIN TAYLOR
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 30
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: 465-3873
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor statement for SJR 7
JEFF LOGAN, Legislative Assistant
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 24
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: 465-4931
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided Sponsor Statement for HB 17
DAVE HUTCHENS
Alaska Rural Electric Cooperative Association
703 W. Tudor, #200
Anchorage, AK 99503
Telephone: 907-561-6103
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 17
KAREN BOORMAN, Executive Director
Alaska Public Offices Commission
2221 E. Northern Lights, #128
Anchorage, AK 99508
Telephone: 907-276-4176
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information for HB 13
MELINDA GRUENING, Legislative Assistant
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 24
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: 465-4931
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided Sponsor Statement for HB 32
TOM WILLIAMS, Director
Permanent Fund Division
Alaska Department of Revenue
PO Box 110460
Juneau, AK 99811
Telephone: 465-2323
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered Questions on HB 32
REPRESENTATIVE TERRY MARTIN
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 502
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
Telephone: 465-3783
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided Sponsor Statement for HB 44
REPRESENTATIVE GENE THERRIAULT
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 421
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: 465-4797
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in support of HB 44
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SJR 7
SHORT TITLE: OPPOSING FEDERAL MANDATES ON STATES
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S)
TAYLOR,Halford,Kelly,Sharp,Torgerson,Green,Pearce
Leman,Frank,Miller; REPRESENTATIVE(S) Grussendorf,Navarre
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/16/95 11 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/95 11 (S) JUDICIARY
01/25/95 (S) JUD AT 01:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
01/25/95 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
01/26/95 93 (S) JUD RPT 3DP 2NR
01/26/95 93 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (S.JUD)
01/26/95 (S) RLS AT 12:30 PM FAHRENKAMP ROOM 203
01/26/95 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
01/27/95 104 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 1/27/94
01/27/95 105 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
01/27/95 105 (S) COSPONSOR(S): PEARCE
01/27/95 105 (S) THIRD READING 2/1 CALENDAR
02/01/95 129 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SJR 7
02/01/95 130 (S) RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 1 UNAN CONSENT
02/01/95 130 (S) AM NO 1 FAILED Y7 N12 E1
02/01/95 131 (S) AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING
02/01/95 131 (S) COSPONSOR(S): LEMAN, FRANK, MILLER
02/01/95 131 (S) PASSED Y18 N1 E1
02/01/95 134 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
02/03/95 217 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/03/95 217 (H) STATE AFFAIRS
02/03/95 243 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): GRUSSENDORF, NAVARRE
02/07/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 17
SHORT TITLE: OFFICERS OF UTILITY COOPERATIVES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) GREEN
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/06/95 25 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/16/95 25 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/95 25 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, LABOR & COMMERCE
02/07/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 13
SHORT TITLE: CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REPORTS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) GREEN,Bunde
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/06/95 23 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/16/95 23 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/95 24 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
01/19/95 88 (H) COSPONSOR(S): BUNDE
02/07/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 32
SHORT TITLE: PFD ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) GREEN
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/06/95 29 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/16/95 29 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/95 29 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
02/07/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 44
SHORT TITLE: GAMING PROCEEDS/DEFINE CHARITABLE ORG'NS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MARTIN,Rokeberg,Porter,Bunde
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/06/95 32 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/16/95 32 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/95 32 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY
01/19/95 90 (H) COSPONSOR(S): BUNDE
01/26/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
01/26/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/07/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 106
SHORT TITLE: REPEAL ART IN PUBLIC PLACES REQUIREMENT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) VEZEY
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/20/95 102 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/20/95 102 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE
02/07/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HJR 20
SHORT TITLE: CONFERENCE OF THE STATES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) BARNES,Grussendorf,Foster,Mulder
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/23/95 115 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/23/95 115 (H) WTR, STA
01/31/95 (H) WTR AT 05:00 PM CAPITOL 408
01/31/95 (H) MINUTE(WTR)
02/01/95 195 (H) WTR RPT 6DP
02/01/95 195 (H) DP: PHILLIPS, WILLIAMS, KUBINA
02/01/95 195 (H) DP: G.DAVIS, MULDER, BARNES
02/01/95 195 (H) FISCAL NOTE (LAA) 2/1/95
02/01/95 195 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (GOV) 2/1/95
02/01/95 196 (H) REFERRED TO STATE AFFAIRS
02/07/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HJR 4
SHORT TITLE: USE OF INITIATIVE TO AMEND CONSTITUTION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MARTIN,Rokeberg
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/06/95 17 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/16/95 17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/95 17 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY
01/26/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
01/26/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/07/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-10, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES called the meeting to order at 8:05 a.m. and
announced, for the record, that Representative Gene Therriault was
in the audience.
HSTA - 02/07/95
SJR 7 - OPPOSING FEDERAL MANDATES ON STATES
SENATOR ROBIN TAYLOR read the following sponsor statement on SJR 7:
Senate Joint Resolution 7 is virtually identical to
resolutions already passed in Colorado, Hawaii, Missouri,
California, Pennsylvania and Michigan. Separate resolutions
have been passed by the Senate and House in Illinois, by the
House in Oklahoma and Louisiana and by the Senate in Kentucky.
The resolution has been introduced in 12 other states and has
sponsors in an additional 20 states.
SJR 7 is representative of what has become a national
movement, started in the West, to reassert the sovereignty of
the people and the individual states under the Tenth
Amendment.
The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
is brief and to the point. It reads: "The powers not
delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States,
respectively, or to the people."
Passage of SJR 7 will send a strong, clear message to the
Congress that Alaska is ready to claim her rights under the
Tenth Amendment. Those rights include the power to choose
whether or not to implement mandates imposed on the states by
a Congress, which fails to recognize the intent of the
Founding Fathers in limiting the powers of the central
government.
Past Legislatures have protested individual mandates in
numerous resolutions, without result. Passage of SJR 7 will
strengthen the resolve of those members of Congress currently
working to end the tyranny of unfunded and unconstitutional
mandates.
There will be those who argue that SJR 7 has no force of law
because it is only a resolution. State Senator Charles Duke,
of Colorado, when he won passage of the first resolution of
this kind, answered that argument eloquently. He reminded his
colleagues, and I quote, Our Declaration of Independence had
no force of law.
I ask the committee's support of SJR 7.
Number 047
CHAIR JAMES said she suggested an amendment and a committee
substitute, which she would discuss with the sponsor. A copy of
the amendment was passed out to members of committee.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked Senator Taylor what the status was
in the other states that are working this issue.
SENATOR TAYLOR said he couldn't answer that, except it is very
positive. There are many other states apart from those he
mentioned in his opening statement that are working on this same
process.
Number 085
CHAIR JAMES read the following amendment to the committee:
WHEREAS the United States Constitution envisions sovereign
states and guarantees the states a republican form of
government; and
WHEREAS Alaska and its municipalities are losing their power
to act on behalf of state citizens as the power of government
is moving farther away from the people into the hands of
federal agencies composed of officials who are not elected and
who are unaware of the needs of Alaska and the other states;
and
WHEREAS the federal court system affords a means to liberate
the states from the grips of federal mandates;
FURTHER RESOLVED that the Governor is respectively requested
to examine and challenge by legal action on behalf of the
state, federal mandates contained in court rulings, federal
laws and regulations, or federal practices to the extent to
those mandates infringe on the sovereignty of Alaska or the
state's authority over issues affecting its citizens; and be
it
FURTHER RESOLVED that Alaska's sister states are urged to
participate in any legal action brought under this resolution.
CHAIR JAMES wanted to submit the above amendment to the committee
and said she had the CS for SJR 7. She asked for comments from the
sponsor regarding the proposed changes.
SENATOR TAYLOR did not believe the changes would do any disservice
to the legislation. He said if people feel they are of assistance,
then wanted to participate in that also, it was a good idea.
Number 128
REPRESENTATIVE ED WILLIS asked Senator Taylor how he envisioned
this resolution would work, if it were implemented. Another
question he had was if this resolution included both funded and
unfunded mandates.
Number 139
SENATOR TAYLOR explained that it is not a question of whether or
not money is involved. The question is not just unfunded mandates.
Frequently, those mandates that do not require a specific amount of
funding are probably as onerous to us as anything. There are
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) mandates that set various
standards and tell us that we, if we wish to have our Department of
Environmental Conservation participate in the game, have to pass
higher standards, or that we cannot pass any standard lower than
those of the federal government. That is a mandate on us; for
instance, mandating how our garbage dumps work, and it mandates how
our water works. Those mandates are just as offensive as those
that require us to spend money on various programs yet they fail to
send the money. This legislation is worded in such a way that it
encompasses all mandates: Funded and unfunded.
Number 173
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN voiced his support for this Senate resolution.
Number 191
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS expressed that this is saying that problems
are strictly problems of the states. Some mandates, such as with
EPA, were triggered in the past because at the time, they felt
compelling needs for the problems to be looked at nationally.
Representative Willis's concern was if this action would preclude
the national government from looking at a problem that might have
national implications.
SENATOR TAYLOR answered that this was not the intent of this
resolution. There are always going to be matters of national
significance that need the attention of the federal government.
The problem is that the federal government made a decision to go
way beyond what either the Constitution or the forefathers of this
country ever intended for the federal government to do. It is
micro-managing almost every aspect of our lives within the state.
If the state is going to retain any semblance of state's rights in
this constitutional balance, then the people of the state must
reassert themselves for that purpose. The national requirements
for defending this nation, the national requirement for providing
for ease of transportation and access across state lines, and to
make certain that disease and illness are attacked, that education
is funded, and that various standards are set, are not perceived as
being as local or on a regional basis, so that they would not have
a national significance. He doesn't believe they say that in this
resolution. He believes it speaks loudly about the concerns of
whether or not there is any state jurisdiction left.
Number 231
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN brought up the wetlands act as a classic
example of government overreaction. In a state like Florida where
the Everglades are drying up, there is a crisis and there should be
a stoppage of continued watering or "de-watering" encroachment into
wetlands, but to strike a pen and say that all states will have no
net loss of wetlands, it is micro-managing.
SENATOR TAYLOR said he was in the Florida Everglades about four
weeks ago. For the last five or six years they have used the
drying up of the Everglades as a campaign issue and fund raiser.
Now because of unusual rains, they are experiencing the highest
water level in 42 years, so the people of Florida worry now about
the panther and deer populations because they are stuck up on an
island and the panthers are eating the deer, and the deer are
starving. The campaign presentingly is to save the deer and to do
something about all that water.
CHAIR JAMES spoke up about our practice of social engineering,
financial engineering, and natures engineering. She said, "If man
believes that they can manipulate nature, they are on an ego trip.
There is absolutely no power as strong as nature to destroy or to
create."
Number 275
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN said he respects the intent of the
resolution, and he agreed with some of the problems that have been
incurred in other parts of Alaska, and the topic of wetlands that
has been wrestled with by Alaskans trying to develop resources.
However, he wanted to address the amendment submitted by
Representative Ogan, wondering if it is speaking to actions such as
the lawsuit recently addressed: Babbitt v. Alaska. He asked if
this was part of addressing it into the amendment, on lines 15 and
16.
CHAIR JAMES said that was not her intention. This legislation has
nothing to do with the Babbitt lawsuit. It is a different issue
altogether. What it is suggesting is that the Governor examine and
challenge the federal government, by legal action, on behalf of the
state: Federal mandates, like the mandatory helmet law. There are
many mandates, particularly in the Department of Transportation
(DOT) and if the state does not do what they say, DOT takes away
our highway funds. She believes this is a blackmail clause.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN said we need to move that this first
amendment be accepted.
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER moved that the committee adopt the CS
for SJR 7, Draft C, dated 2/6/95.
CHAIR JAMES asked if there was any objection to the motion. There
being no objection, she said the motion passed and they would be
working from the CS for SJR 7, Draft C.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN referred to his amendment, which he passed out,
and moved to adopt amendment 3, to be added to the CS. It includes
a change on line 1 and line 2 of page 2 on the CS. It reads:
WHEREAS the powers of the Congress are itemized in Art. I,
Sec.8, of the United States Constitution, and the Congress
should concentrate on carrying out those important duties
while leaving local matters to each of the states to resolve
based upon the unique needs and circumstance of each state;
WHEREAS the management of fish and wildlife resources by the
federal government within the State of Alaska is not
authorized by the United States Constitution and is a gross
abrogation of power reserved to the several states thereunder;
and
Number 360
SENATOR TAYLOR said there are errors in the first paragraph,
because there are more powers than are addressed: Military powers
and other powers.
Number 415
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN, after hearing more comments, withdrew his
amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved that the committee pass CS for SJR 7 out
of committee, with individual recommendations. There being no
objection, it was so moved.
HSTA - 02/07/95
HB 17 - OFFICERS OF UTILITY COOPERATIVES
JEFF LOGAN, Legislative Assistant for Representative Green, sponsor
of HB 17, testified on the CS for HB 17, Version C, dated February
1, 1995. This is the version of the bill that he and
Representative Green are asking the committee to adopt and pass out
of the committee. The proposed version of HB 17 is different than
the originals. As the sponsors did research on HB 17, working with
the Electrical Utilities and their representatives, they discovered
they had other needs that weren't addressed in the original bill.
Some of the needs are a result of federal legislation that passed
last fall. They are addressed in sections 1 and 2 of the bill. In
section 3 or 4 there are housekeeping clarifications. Mr. Logan
said that Mr. Dave Hutchens was there from the Rural Utility
Cooperative to testify and to answer questions. The rest of the
bill is a new tack on what was the original language of HB 17. The
change in federal statutes is a consolidation of some of the
financing agencies in the federal government that finance low
interest loans to utilities. For Alaskan Cooperative Utilities to
take advantage of those changes, they need a major change in
statute. Mr. Logan said that previously, the Rural Electric
Administration (REA) provided low interest loans to electric
cooperatives, to finance very expensive generation transmission
equipment, which was necessary to do the work that these people do.
The REA has now been combined with a number of other agencies that
provided loans for other utilities, and this co-op is called the
RUS, or the Rural Utilities Service.
MR. LOGAN had with him the CS for HB 17. At the bottom of page 2
is the crux of the CS; it is a major change. It reads: "Electric
cooperatives may now offer services other than electricity, and
those services are direct satellite television, sewer and water and
gas." Section 3 of the proposed CS was the crux of the original
HB 17, which is AS 10.25.200. Last year the prime sponsors of this
bill also sponsored HB 497, which passed the House, but it did not
make it through the Senate. HB 497 addressed this statute which
says, essentially, that the state requires that officers of a
utility board be titled a president, a vice president, a secretary
and a treasurer. The problem is, in business, the presiding offer
of the board is not always given the title of president. A large
utility in the state found this problematic, and this bill takes a
new tack on it, saying that the state has no business telling a
utility what to call their officers. It simply says "those
officers authorized by the bylaws." Essentially, what the bill is
doing is getting out of telling utilities what to call their
officers. That is what section 3 states. The rest of the bill
except for section 4 is housekeeping clarifications. One
housekeeping clarification is to make sure the statute is clear
that the bylaws can be changed by a two-thirds vote of those
members present, or voting by mail when it is appropriate, as
opposed to requiring two-thirds of the members of the co-op, which
could be a rather unruly election process.
Number 517
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said that from the way the amendment is
written, in terms of the voting for the co-op, he would interpret
it to mean the election has to be one or the other; either the
election by vote at a meeting or an election by mail. It could not
be both and he wondered if that is what the bill intended.
MR. LOGAN said he did not think that was the sponsor's intention.
Number 527
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN, prime sponsor of HB 17, concurred that it was
not the intent. The wording was taken from an article provided by
the co-op itself, that a vote counts whether it is by mail or voted
at the meeting, and that is what they meant. He said they would
modify the CS to keep with the intent.
Number 550
CHAIR JAMES asked Representative Porter if the wording were changed
to "and/or by mail" if it would fit his criteria.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER thought it would be more prudent to run this
by persons who know these things than tinker with it at this
committee table.
Number 571
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved that the committee adopt CS for HB 17,
version C, dated 2/1/95 as a working draft. There being no
objection, it was so ordered.
CHAIR JAMES asked if anyone on the committee wanted to make a
conceptual amendment to CS HB 17.
Number 576
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved that the committee adopt a conceptual
amendment to request the drafter to reconsider the language of page
3, line 22 and other places where this language appears, where is
says: "at a meeting or by mail." The drafter should consider if
"at a meeting or by mail" allows a vote of both simultaneously, and
if not, to make the appropriate changes. There being no objection,
it was so ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked, referring to the original HB 17, if
the Alaska Public Utilities Commission (APUC) has direct satellite
television within its jurisdiction. Mr. Logan said that Dave
Hutchens could answer that question.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if it is a new form of business for these
co-ops, adding these new services: Sewer, water, satellite
television and gas services.
CHAIR JAMES said that it is a federal change to allow and encourage
these companies to do that.
Number 610
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN brought up that some of the utilities,
especially in smaller communities, are being more streamlined.
The federal attitude was that the REA or electric co-ops have been
so successful that it would be more streamlined and successful if
they could allow the local communities to piggyback some other
utilities with the structure that they have with the electrical
utilities.
Number 625
DAVE HUTCHENS, Executive Director, Alaska Electric Cooperative
Association, said that the association is composed of 18 electric
co-ops scattered around the state, and it serves about two-thirds
of the people. Three of those co-ops have celebrated their 50th
anniversary. In late 1986 or 1987, the legislature passed a re-
codification of the Electric and Telephone Cooperative Act, AS
10.25, and that has served the people well. In regards to the U.S.
Department of Agriculture where changes occurred, the cooperative
thought it was time for some modest revisions to this Act.
Regarding the issue of voting that was raised, on page 3, line 22,
about voting by mail or at the meeting, he suggested the language
could be clarified if they simply reverse the order and put "by
mail or at the meeting."
Number 653
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said he saw the original bill without the CS
and had some concerns to clear up. He explained that he has
concerns with section 2: "expanding the utilities to other services
besides electric or telephone." His concern is that small
business would have to compete with big business.
MR. HUTCHENS assured Representative Ivan that this is not cable
television, but direct satellite broadcasts. Someone had
questioned if this was something that presently came through the
APUC and the answer he gave was "no." The satellite that brings
the service to people across the Lower 48 is not positioned where
Alaska can receive data from it. He mentioned ads on direct
television with a little 18-inch disk: This is what he has been
talking about. We in Alaska cannot get that service.
TAPE 95-10, SIDE B
Number 000
MR. HUTCHENS continued to say that there would be someone selling
the direct programming and someone else selling the hardware. The
market for this would not be in the villages where people live
compactly to where they could be reached by cable televisions. The
market would be rural parts of the Kenai Peninsula, the Matanuska
Valley, the rural areas outside of Fairbanks, and through the
Copper River Valley.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked him to address that small villages might
want to form their own small co-op. The point in section 1 is that
they have no intention of going into competition with businesses
already established in an area.
Number 087
MR. HUTCHENS assured Representative Ivan that this is not mandatory
at all, and the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) does loan money
directly to small municipalities in rural areas. The reason they
want the electric cooperatives to become prepared to be available
as backups for the sewer and water business is that the predecessor
agencies to RUS have loaned money to a number of small communities
that did not have the management system to satisfactorily operate
sewer and water systems over the long haul, so they failed or are
failing. They want somebody to be able to step in and provide the
management service to keep those systems operating.
Number 127
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said that speaking of past history, we did not
have people in management or people capable of financial planning
and organizing for business, but now, after 20 years, there is the
expertise and capabilities in small communities. He said it is not
just satellite, but gas and services, and those are some of the
things they will be looking at to make lives better.
CHAIR JAMES asked how we can address these things when we are
trying to encourage people to do more for themselves, and to make
their small businesses work, then we allow big business to come in
to do the same things. Little businesses cannot always compete
with big businesses. This is not a mandate, it is an allowance,
but she understands the threat felt by small business, that big
businesses will come in and push them out.
MR. HUTCHENS pointed out that the electric coops are not big
business. Those serving in the larger communities have become
large, but those in the rural areas are quite small, such as
Naknek, King Salmon and North Naknek. They think there is a local
gas supply in the immediate area that is not large enough to
attract oil companies to come in to develop it for export, but
would be available for local furnishing of service. About how to
protect people who were there first, to keep other people from
coming in on top of them, that is why they made a point in section
1, the legislative intent section, to say it is not intended that
the cooperative would go into competition with anyone that is
already there.
CHAIR JAMES called for a motion to move the bill out of committee.
Number 138
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved that the committee pass the CS for HB
17 as conceptually amended with individual recommendations. There
being no objection, it was so ordered.
HSTA - 02/07/95
HB 13 - CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE REPORTS
Number 156
CHAIR JAMES said the next bill on the agenda is HB 13.
JEFF LOGAN, Legislative Assistant to Representative Joe Green, the
prime sponsor of HB 13, gave the sponsor statement.
HB 13 makes it easier for the public to know who is
contributing money to non-party candidates for statewide
office.
Problem: Currently, non-party candidates for legislative
office who gain access to the general election ballot by going
through the petition or write-in process are not required to
file campaign finance disclosure reports during the primary
election cycle. Alaska Public Office Commission Policy
Decision 15.13-82-2 sets requirements for these candidates.
The commission has ruled that non-party candidates, groups
formed to influence the outcome of ballot issues not appearing
on the primary ballot, and political party subdivisions and
multi-candidate PACs which do not make expenditures to benefit
a candidate on the primary ballot..."need not file either
primary or general election reports so long as their only
activity during those reporting periods is the receipt of
contributions or the expenditures of funds for administrative
purposes."
When a campaign-related expenditure is made, the reporting
cycle is triggered. Until that time, the public has no idea
who is contributing money to non-party candidates.
Solution: HB 13 requires prospective non-party candidates for
legislative office to disclose to the public, during the
primary election reporting cycle, who is making campaign
contributions to them.
MR.LOGAN pointed out that HB 13 will eliminate corruption. Also
the bill has a zero fiscal note.
Number 278
KAREN BOORMAN, Executive Director, Alaska Public Offices
Commission, testified by teleconference that their office has been
working with Mr. Logan on HB 13. The commission supports this CS,
and Mr. Logan is correct in saying it would have a zero fiscal note
rather than the positive fiscal note that was attached to the
original bill. The bill would require that those state candidates
who become active during the primary election cycle by raising or
spending money file a series of reports, as in the primary election
cycle, even though they are running on the general election ballot.
The commission supports this, having noticed in the last two state
elections that this group of people has increased: In the 1992
election there were 11 such candidates, and in 1994 there were 17
such candidates. The change can be attributed to an apportionment
where the districts changed; also, the closed primary.
REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON asked why this has not been part of
the law in the past.
Number 300
MS. BOORMAN answered there have not been that many candidates that
ran by nominating petition in this way. It was the commission's
position that if they were not active in the primary election, they
did not have to report during that cycle. It is a new and
increasing problem now, that these people are viable candidates,
actively raising and spending money. Before, the commission was
trying to avoid unnecessary reports to those small campaigns and
groups whose activity was very limited.
CHAIR JAMES questioned Ms. Boorman about the rule that says that
before any candidate can collect or raise funds, they must file an
intent to run.
MS. BOORMAN said that Chair James was correct, and filing an intent
would be an indication that disclosure would be necessary. She
anticipated there would be approximately 20 in any given campaign
cycle.
Number 334
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved they pass CS for HB 13 Version G, dated
2/3/95. Hearing no objection, the motion passed. Chair James
affirmed that the CS for HB 13, Version G would be the working
document.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER added that he would support the bill, but
there is another bill coming up that might render this piece of
legislation unnecessary.
CHAIR JAMES said he was speaking of legislation that indicates that
the two highest vote getters out of the primary go on to the
general election. She would take deference to Representative
Porter's stand, because it eliminates the people who are without a
party from running.
Number 360
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS went through that process and said, for the
interest of fairness, this is a good piece of legislation. He
thought, as an Independent, that he would have to file, but when he
went to file he was told that he didnt have to. Again, in the
interest of fairness, he supported the bill.
Number 379
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved that the committee move CS HB 13,
Version G, dated 2/3/95 from committee with individual
recommendations and adopt a zero fiscal note. There being no
objection, CS for House Bill 13 passed out of committee.
HSTA - 02/07/95
HB 32 - PFD ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
Number 391
MELINDA GRUENING, Legislative Assistant to Representative Joe
Green, the prime sponsor of HB 32, said that because of one of his
constituents who had been waiting two years for his Permanent Fund
Division (PFD) Representative Green began investigating the
problem. He thought two years was entirely too long for anyone to
wait on appeals. When he contacted the Permanent Fund Dividend
Division, he found out the number of appeals pending were directly
related to the high number of appeals filed. A number of these, he
discovered, could be considered frivolous appeals. HB 32 addresses
the problem of the huge number of appeals after a person has been
denied a PFD, and the time it takes to file those appeals.
MS. GRUENING commented as of January 1995, there were 9,704 appeals
pending. This is the highest number since the PFD program's
inception. The statistics received from the Department of Revenue
show there are some people who have waited longer than two years.
Processing such a large number of appeals is costly, and the time
delays are unfair to persons with legitimate claims to appeal.
Currently, there are 10 permanent full-time employees in the PFD
division, and three appeals officers in the commissioner's office
working on processing appeals. They are reorganizing the appeals
officers in the commissioner's office, so there will be one person
full time in the commissioner's office.
MS. GRUENING said part of the problem is that it only costs a 32-
cent stamp to file an appeal, so people tend to automatically file
an appeal when they are denied. Many people who are not qualified
clearly file for an appeal; some who were out of state, or they
missed the deadline. The denial rate was 64 percent last year, and
in previous years the rate has been even higher. HB 32 would
implement a $25.00 filing fee for individuals protesting the denial
of their PFD application. The department will adopt a regulation
that will allow an indigent individual to be exempt from this fee.
The filing fee would be refundable if the applicant's appeal is
successful, and it would be non-refundable if the denial is not
overturned. It is anticipated that the implementation of a filing
fee would discourage clearly unqualified persons from appealing.
It would reduce the cost and make the appeals process shorter and
more streamlined for those with legitimate claims. Also, because
administrative costs are deducted from each person's PFD check, the
positive fiscal note associated would mean a slightly larger check.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked why the appeals process takes so
long.
Number 456
MS. GRUENING answered it is a three tier process: An informal
appeal process, then the formal appeal process, and then finally,
they can appeal to Superior Court. They have worked on
efficiencies, but there are a large number of appeals and they
cannot get caught up.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said she was also trying to imagine $25.00
coming in and then $25.00 going out, and about who will cut the
checks.
Number 479
TOM WILLIAMS, Director, Permanent Fund Dividend Division,
Department of Revenue, addressed the appeals process. Some
individuals are denied a PFD check by their document processing
section, based on the information they provide on their
application, if it shows they are clearly ineligible. They also
select other applications for an eligibility determination process
by their review staff. They can issue denials, and they do. An
7individual who has been denied by either process has 60 days to
file an informal conference appeal. It is for someone whose
application has an error and the applicant has an opportunity to
say we have the facts wrong. Then there are the informal
conference levels that determine if they made a right decision;
otherwise, they pay the individual. If the applicant is denied,
but they think the department is still wrong, they can request a
formal hearing. They have 30 days to do that. The formal hearing
is conducted before the commissioner's office staff. The division
has people who represent the department's position, and the
individual can represent their position before the formal hearing
staff. The formal hearing staff will issue a decision, either
overturning the denial or upholding it. If the denial is upheld by
the informal hearing staff, the individual has 30 days to appeal to
the Superior Court, so there is a three tier appeal process. Most
denials that will be overturned are overturned at the informal
conference stage. They are trying to reduce the number of
frivolous appeals.
Number 553
CHAIR JAMES asked if they have a calculation based on the volume of
appeals, and what the cost is.
MR. WILLIAMS said they do not have an overall cost. It varies by
the nature of the appeals. He could get the committee an amount of
how much it costs to run the appeal's section.
Number 564
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said this is a good idea, yet she wondered
if money going in and out again would be a problem. This
legislation might solve one problem and create another one.
Number 570
MR. WILLIAMS said that when adding a procedure there are
administrative things that need to be done to implement that. They
have the basic mechanism there to deal with money coming in and
going out, so the most significant impact would be the time it
would take to do the necessary data processing programming.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if Mr. Williams thought it would be
a benefit, or a good direction to go. She also asked if they
started making money if it would go to the general fund.
Number 595
MR. WILLIAMS thought it would be "do-able." It would reduce the
number of appeals they would get, and it would ultimately show a
reduction in staff. Also, any money they made would go to the
permanent dividend fund.
Number 596
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he assumed that the appeals form
provided for people who disagreed about the denial and informed
them clearly about the process involved. He was skeptical about
the odds of them winning their cases.
Number 603
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS asked if a household was denied payment of
the PFD checks, based on the sponsor being denied, if every member
of the household would have to pay the $25.00.
MR. WILLIAMS answered, yes. There are variations of situations,
and individual determinations. If the sponsor qualifies the child
will qualify.
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN had a question of Ms. Gruening. He asked what
the definition is for indigent.
Number 622
MS. GRUENING said she spoke to Vince Usera in the Department of Law
who said it would be the same criteria that are used for
determining indigent status for the court system.
REPRESENTATIVE IVANS concern was for the constituents in his
district who cannot speak or read the English language. He needed
to know what the impact would be on people such as them, including
the dollar amount involved.
Number 633
CHAIR JAMES said what "indigent" means is that they don't have any
money to pay. The person is not financially able to pay the
$25.00. There are other reasons a person might not be able to pay
a fee that would not indicate the person is indigent.
Number 654
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN suggested amending the bill with language
similar to that in the application to get a hunting license. When
a person cannot afford to pay for the license, the criteria are
simple. If a person's income is less than a designated amount they
can sign an affidavit and get the hunting license.
Number 664
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN suggested that we modify the bill, which now
reads "indigent." The committee could modify that, replacing
indigent with a dollar amount, like $2,000 a year, if that would be
the desire of the committee.
Number 667
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER suggested that the wording merely include
"indigent, as defined in a designated state statute."
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON stated that if HB 70 was passed, it will
take out anyone in the military who is on food stamps, or a person
who is sick and on food stamps, or anyone on welfare who is on food
stamps, so very few people will even qualify for this.
Number 675
MS. GRUENING passed on to the committee that Vince Usera in the
Department of Law said that the court is determined that this
should be handled by regulation, not by law. She said they could
find what the criteria are, and it could be written into the bill,
if that is the wish of the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said he would like to request a definition of
the word, "indigent" and what impact it would have on the people in
that category.
Number 682
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said the issue of importance is whether it is
the will committee to use the word "indigent" and then define the
word in the bill, or not to use "indigent" and put in a dollar
amount.
Number 685
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said she would like to know how "indigent"
is defined in other areas, so that the committee is consistent.
Number 687
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN moved that the committee adopt the proposed
amendment and word it similarly to the hunting license criteria.
CHAIR JAMES said that since we did not have a copy of the
regulations about getting a hunting license, she would have to say
that motion was not in order.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER suggested that we hold the bill over and
research what the criteria are for getting a hunting license. If
it is a straightforward position, then we may see if that is
appropriate for HB 32.
TAPE 95-11, SIDE A
Number 000
CHAIR JAMES also felt that since the committee was not in consensus
on this issue, there needed to be a change in the language of the
bill.
MS. GRUENING asked exactly what it was the committee wished for her
to research.
CHAIR JAMES answered that she should look in other areas to see
what people are exempt from paying certain fees because they don't
have any money, then bring it forward to committee to see what
options they have. If "indigent" is the only option, then they
will need to know what it means so they can relate it to specific
people in their districts. She said they would hold the bill over
until the next meeting on Thursday, February 9, and put it under
previously heard bills on the agenda.
HSTA - 02/07/95
HB 44 - GAMING PROCEEDS/DEFINE CHARITABLE ORGNS
Number 043
REPRESENTATIVE TERRY MARTIN brought forth to the committee HB 44
with his sponsor statement. The sponsor statement reads:
In August of 1994 before the Primary Election, the Anchorage
Daily News published an information article disclosing where
candidates for the governorship were receiving their financial
support. Lawyers became very prominent, as did construction
and the oil industries, as well as the fishing industry who
flapped its wings to get candidates' attention. Five days
later the Voice of the Times brought into focus two other
major players who financed political campaigns - unions and
state employee groups.
Both articles missed the real Motherload. The newest, most
prolific motherload to fill Alaska's campaign coffer is
Gam(bl)ing - or more specifically, pull-tab permits. Alaska
is the only state that allows political parties and local
political districts to maintain gambling permits while also
allowing a limitless contributory ability from political units
and pull-tab permitees to candidates. The lack of restriction
on gambling dollars directed to political campaigns has given
those in control over permits an incalculable influence and
control over elected officials who are beholden to them for
special voting and political generosity. The process is one
in which the operators and political district officers decide
who will receive the largest gambling receipts, thus gaining
the highest level of control. The operators of the permits
can and do use the political permits at the most profitable
places and at the most prolific times, while the true
charitable permitees suffer accordingly.
There should be an outcry of public disdain for this practice
in Alaska, but it will not be heard until the facts of
gambling's influence are exposed. The gurus of ethics who,
for the last ten years have been shouting the virtues of
reform of special interest in political campaigns, have
developed a scam of the worst kind. It involves political
parties posing as charitable organizations in the name of
reform. What we have seen guised as a "charity," is nothing
less than raw political abuse of influence peddling and powers
to corrupt the minds of the innocent for personal gains. This
misuse of charity is no longer to be concealed. Rather it
should be brought to bear before the public, in its true form,
as an instrument of power that attracts the greed of elected
officials.
Since the passage of legislation orchestrated through several
Spenard lawyer/legislators and gam(bl)ing operators that
legalized pull-tabs and licensing (monopolizing) operators
under the guise of "reform", we see the industry's growth
escalate from an annual gross revenue of $60 million in 1988
to over $227 million in 1993.
When zeroing in on just political permits we see a phenomenal
growth of gross revenues in 1989 of $874,958 to $3,978,179 in
1993. There are 13 Democrat organizations, 5 Republican units
and the Alaska Independence Party that have pull-tab permits.
Labor organizations also depend on gam(bl)ing activities,
especially pull-tabs, to fuel their political machinery.
During 1993, 21 labor unions received $4,269,972 in gross
revenues through their permits. By holding gaming permits,
politicians, political parties and precincts strip millions of
dollars away from the true charities.
True charities have a purpose in that they assist those who
require aid, whether by training to work, or by clothing and
feeding. The gaming process in-turn reduces state
expenditures and services. Those who own gaming permits for
reasons other than charity control the distribution to
political groups and candidates, and end up controlling the
legislature in a more sinister way than true advocates of
ideologies in a democratic-representative government. This
new motherload that fills political coffers must be
eliminated. As evident by the 1994 primary and general
elections, the amount of political contributions and proceeds
originating from charitable gaming (pull-tab) receipts
distributed to Alaskan political candidates is overwhelming.
House Bill 44 is the vehicle through which to change this
problem. I urge your support.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN believes that politics must be taken out of
gaming. Political groups should not be considered charities. He
would like to go back to the IRS to define "charity."
Number 211
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS asked Representative Martin who would be
eliminated under this bill. He wanted to know what the
ramifications would be?
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN said he couldn't tell him what the full
ramifications would be, but his intent is simply to get political
groups out of gaming. The labor groups are the main ones that
create the most problems. Last year there were 19 political groups
that signed up for political pull tabs, and it is increasing. In
Valdez there was $52,000 raised for payout to political groups.
True charities are those who do not use money for candidates.
Twenty-one unions had permits for the year 1993.
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS asked just what groups would be eliminated.
He wondered if the Elks, Lions and American Legion were involved in
this.
CHAIR JAMES said, to clarify this issue, that by tying this into
the 501-C3 regulations, by who is entitled to get tax exempt status
as a nonprofit corporation with Internal Revenue Service for tax
purposes, the one prerequisite is that the corporation must not be
involved in affecting legislation or political issues.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN said there is an expansion on that, Section
B, F, and G, that need to be put in the amendment, to cover
organizations such as the American Legion and VFW.
CHAIR JAMES said it would be necessary to carry HB 44 to the next
meeting. She also wanted to hear HB 49 because it pertained to the
same thing, gambling proceeds.
REPRESENTATIVE GENE THERRIAULT said that his bill, HB 49, is
identical to Representative Martin's except for certain nonprofits.
He supports Representative Martin's bill, which is intended to
tighten up the rules on using money from pull-tabs and other gaming
proceeds for political candidates. Also, people play pull-tabs
without knowing what they are supporting.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said there was a bill passed to determine
where the money goes from pull-tabs, and she wondered if this bill
affects raffles at schools, clubs and other nonprofit
organizations. Political parties use raffles, both Republicans and
Democrats, and she sees nothing wrong with that.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN said most people don't care where their money
comes from, but he is trying to take politics out of it.
Number 469
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT said that when people chose to play pull-
tabs, it is time driven. It is okay to get scholarship funds with
raffles and pull-tabs. His bill, HB 49, does not include raffles.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIR JAMES held HB 44 over to the next meeting and the meeting
adjourned at 10:10 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|