Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/21/1995 08:04 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 21, 1995
8:04 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jeannette James, Chair
Representative Scott Ogan, Vice-Chair
Representative Joe Green
Representative Ivan
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Caren Robinson
Representative Ed Willis
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HB 83: "An Act relating to state implementation of federal
statutes."
HEARD AND HELD
HJR 4: Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State
of Alaska authorizing the use of the initiative to amend
the Constitution of the State of Alaska.
HEARD AND HELD
HB 44: "An Act providing that a political use is not an
authorized use of charitable gaming proceeds; prohibiting
the contribution of charitable gaming proceeds to
candidates for certain public offices, their campaign
organizations, or to a political groups; providing that a
political group is not a qualified organization for
purposes of charitable gaming; relating to what is a
qualified organization for the purpose of charitable
gaming permitting; and providing for an effective date."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HB 127: "An Act increasing the minimum term of imprisonment for
assaults in the fourth degree committed against a police
officer, fire fighter, correctional officer, emergency
medical technician, paramedic, ambulance attendant or
other emergency responders."
HEARD AND HELD
*HB 90: "An Act changing the date that the legislature convenes
in the years following a gubernatorial election."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
*HB 30: "An Act relating to a dress code for public schools."
HEARD AND HELD
*HB 130: "An Act relating to agency review of public comment
on the adoption, amendment, and repeal of regulations;
relating to the examination of proposed regulations,
amendments of regulations, and orders repealing
regulations by the Administrative Regulation Review
Committee and the Department of Law; relating to the
submission to, and acceptance by the lieutenant governor
of proposed regulations, amendments of regulations, and
orders repealing regulations; and requiring agencies to
make certain determinations before adopting regulations,
amendments of regulations, or orders repealing
regulations."
HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing)
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 409
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3878
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided Sponsor Statement for HB 83
MOLLY SHERMAN, Volunteer
Alaska Environmental Lobby, Inc.
P.O. Box 2215
Juneau, AK 99802
Telephone: (907) 463-3366
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified Against HB 83.
JACK KREINHEDER, Senior Policy Analyst
Office of Management and Budget
P.O. Box A
Juneau, AK 99811-0102
Telephone: (907) 465-4676
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided Information on HB 83
TOM ANDERSON, Legislative Assistant
Representative Terry Martin
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 502
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3783
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided Information on HJR 4.
JEFF PRATHER, Acting Director
Department Of Revenue
Charitable Gaming Division
11th Floor State Office Bldg.
P.O. Box 110440
Juneau, AK 99811-0440
Telephone: (907) 465-2229
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 44
BRUCE CAMPBELL, Legislative Aide
Representative Pete Kelly
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 513
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2327
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 127
TOM STEARNS, Major
Deputy Director of State Troopers
5700 E. Tudor Road
Anchorage, AK 99507
Telephone: (907) 269-5641
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 127
JOE DAMEKO, First Sergeant
Division of State Troopers
Department of Public Safety
2760 Sherwood Lane
Juneau, AK 99801-8545
Telephone: (907) 465-4000
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 127
VICTOR GUNN, Deputy Chief
Fairbanks City Police
656 7th Avenue
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Telephone: (907) 459-6500
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 127
REPRESENTATIVE BETTYE DAVIS
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 430
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3875
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 90 and HB 30
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KELLY
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 513
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2327
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 127 and HB 130
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 83
SHORT TITLE: REVIEW OF FEDERALLY MANDATED PROGRAMS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) OGAN, Porter, Kohring, Toohey, James,
Kelly
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/13/95 42 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/16/95 42 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/95 42 (H) WTR, STA, JUD
01/25/95 136 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KOHRING, TOOHEY
01/27/95 162 (H) COSPONSOR(S): JAMES
01/31/95 (H) WTR AT 05:00 PM CAPITOL 408
01/31/95 (H) MINUTE(WTR)
02/03/95 242 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KELLY
02/08/95 268 (H) WTR RPT CS(WTR) 3DP 4NR
02/08/95 269 (H) DP: PHILLIPS, WILLIAMS, BARNES
02/08/95 269 (H) NR: KUBINA, G.DAVIS, MULDER, MACKIE
02/08/95 269 (H) 8 FISCAL NOTES (GOV, DCRA, F&G, DHSS)
02/08/95 269 (H) (LAW, DPS, REV, DOTPF) 2/8/95
02/08/95 269 (H) 9 ZERO FN (ADM, DCED, DOC, DOE, DEC)
02/08/95 269 (H) (F&G, LABOR, DNR, DM&VA) 2/8/95
02/08/95 269 (H) REFERRED TO STA
02/14/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 519
02/21/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HJR 4
SHORT TITLE: USE OF INITIATIVE TO AMEND CONSTITUTION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MARTIN,Rokeberg
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/06/95 17 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/16/95 17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/95 17 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY
01/26/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
01/26/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/07/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/07/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/09/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/09/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/14/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 519
02/14/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/21/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 44
SHORT TITLE: GAMING PROCEEDS/DEFINE CHARITABLE ORG'NS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MARTIN,Rokeberg,Porter,Bunde,Green
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/06/95 32 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/16/95 32 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/95 32 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY
01/19/95 90 (H) COSPONSOR(S): BUNDE
01/26/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
01/26/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/07/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/07/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/09/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/09/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/10/95 321 (H) COSPONSOR(S): GREEN
02/11/95 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/11/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/21/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 127
SHORT TITLE: 120-DAY JAIL: ASSAULT ON OFFICERS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KELLY
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/27/95 156 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/27/95 156 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
02/14/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 519
02/14/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/21/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 90
SHORT TITLE: CONVENING LEGISLATURE AFTER GOV ELECTION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) B.DAVIS, Foster, MacLean, Mackie,
Nicholia, Elton, Finkelstein, Robinson, Davies, Kubina, James,
Toohey
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/17/95 51 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/17/95 52 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY
01/27/95 163 (H) COSPONSOR(S): FOSTER, MACLEAN
01/30/95 180 (H) COSPONSOR(S): MACKIE, NICHOLIA
01/30/95 180 (H) COSPONSOR(S): ELTON, FINKELSTEIN
02/01/95 210 (H) COSPONSOR(S): ROBINSON, DAVIES
02/01/95 210 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KUBINA, JAMES
02/03/95 242 (H) COSPONSOR(S): TOOHEY
02/09/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/09/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/14/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 519
02/14/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/21/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 30
SHORT TITLE: SCHOOL DRESS CODES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) B.DAVIS
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/06/95 28 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/16/95 28 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/95 28 (H) STA, HES
02/09/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/09/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/14/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 519
02/14/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/21/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 130
SHORT TITLE: REGULATION ADOPTION PROCEDURES & REVIEW
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KELLY,James
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/27/95 157 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/27/95 157 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
02/14/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 519
02/14/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/14/95 (H) ARR AT 12:00 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
02/15/95 396 (H) COSPONSOR(S): JAMES
02/21/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-18, SIDE A
Number 000
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES, Chairperson of the House State
Affairs Standing Committee, called the meeting to order at 8:04
a.m. Members present at the call to order were Representatives
Ivan, Brian Porter, Caren Robinson, Ed Willis, Jeannette James, and
Scott Ogan.
The first item on the agenda was HB 83. Chair James reminded the
committee that they heard the sponsor statement at the last meeting
and asked that the bill be revisited.
HSTA - 02/21/95
HB 83 - REVIEW OF FEDERALLY MANDATED PROGRAMS
Number 016
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN spoke on the CS for HB 83 and noted that
copies had been passed out to committee members.
CHAIR JAMES called for a motion to adopt the CS as the working
document.
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER moved to adopt the CS, Version C, for
HB 83, which was from the World Trade Committee. There being no
objection, it was so ordered.
CHAIR JAMES noted that Representative Joe Green arrived.
Number 055
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN explained the change in the CS; namely, that
the review process of federal mandates was changed from "annually"
to "once every four years." This change would reduce the cost of
the mandate by 70 percent. Representative Ogan said he discovered
while studying this bill that there has never been a study as to
what federal mandates cost the state. One study showed, however,
that the municipality of Anchorage alone will spend approximately
$430 million to pay for environmental mandates from 1991 to the
year 2000. Representative Ogan suspects we will pay billions of
dollars on the state level in that same kind of time frame. He
said there are currently 192 federal mandates in force against the
state, and he hopes this bill will be cost effective, and if
passed, it will save the state money. It will set up methods for
dealing with the costs, for negotiating with the federal
government, and also for suing the federal government, if
necessary.
Number 101
REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON said it sounds good in theory, yet
every four years the U.S. Congress passes laws, and from these laws
we get mandates. The U.S. Department of Education has stated that
you must have certain laws regarding guns in schools, for instance.
The state government may or may not agree with the mandate, yet if
it comes from the federal government, not from the state level, it
would need reviewing. Her concern was about what they would be
trying to accomplish doing reviews every four years, if it was to
make determinations about the costs to implement the mandates, or
to make recommendations about whether or not we should implement
the mandates.
Number 124
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN assured Representative Robinson that the intent
of the bill is to scrutinize the mandates and laws to determine if
they are constitutional under the Tenth Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution. That is the thrust of this bill. He believes the
federal government is exceeding its authority, and he said we often
hear about how a certain law might work for different areas in the
lower 48 states, but also they are not applicable here. The idea
is to scrutinize the mandates as litmus tests to see if they are
constitutional. If they are unconstitutional then they can argue
with the federal government in court, if necessary, about their
authority to impose the laws on the state. It will be up to the
Governor to decide whether or not to fight these mandates, and
different governors will surely take different approaches with it.
Number 169
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON agreed that federal laws cannot be changed.
The legislature can only control such things as mandates that the
state is currently accepting and following. Every year there is
something put on us from the federal government, such as the helmet
law and the increase on the drinking age. Many mandates have
threats of losing federal dollars accompanying them, if the state
does not implement it by a certain date. She asked if
Representative Ogan perceives this bill as a means by which the
legislature could decide whether or not to implement the mandate,
or as a way to say the Governor should fight it.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said it was a fair analysis. He mentioned a
situation the city of Anchorage experienced recently where they
refused to implement an environmental mandate. It would have cost
the city $1 million to implement the mandate.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON concluded the bill calls for another
report, or a review on a report; it doesnt force anybody to do
anything. She only felt confused about the cost.
CHAIR JAMES said there would be a cost for the review and a fiscal
note is attached. She suspects if they determined that a
considerable amount of money was required to implement a mandate,
then made a decision not to implement it, the savings would
probably offset the cost of the evaluation. She added there is no
sure way to identify those moneys; however, according to the
information she has, many of the federal mandates cost the state
more to implement than the federal funds provided to the state for
implementation.
Number 202
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked what affect it would have on
mandates that come down during the interim period; for instance, a
mandate that came down three years ago and has been implemented for
these last three years. He wondered if that would lose much of the
effectiveness of what this bill is trying to accomplish.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN agreed the bill might lose some of its
effectiveness. While studying the fiscal note they determined it
would be cost prohibitive to review the mandates each year. On the
other hand, it might be prudent to build something into the bill to
allow for reviews on any new mandates that come in the interim.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asserted that, while it would be a four year
cycle, an unacceptable mandate might come up within the first year
that should be reviewed.
CHAIR JAMES inserted that she felt the Governor should be given the
message about an unacceptable mandate. In fact, it is currently an
administrative option. She said they could be doing that now. HB
83 merely declares that they will review mandates at least every
four years. If a savings was truly recognized it would behoove the
Administration to review the mandates without being told that they
have to.
Number 240
REPRESENTATIVE ED WILLIS inquired about how to distinguish between
the regional concerns versus the national interests.
CHAIR JAMES said she suspects that every decision we ought to make
should be representative of both regional and national interests.
However, one problem with federal mandates is that although they
may apply to Los Angeles or New York, they may not apply to our
area. A problem with federal mandates is that they can only do it
in one size fits all. The question is, if the federal government
has the right to make decisions for Alaska based on problems
relating to situations in other states.
Number 260
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS asked if the review commission would take
each mandate individually, then make a ruling on it and say a
particular mandate should not apply to Alaska. He wondered how it
would work, in practice, when it reached the commission level. He
was confused about how we would determine if we should let
something go, because it is in the national interest, or because it
is a regional thing and they should leave us alone.
Number 277
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN pointed out that there is a section in the bill
that covers new mandates, on page 2, line 30.
The commissioner of a department or head of another agency of
the executive branch authorized to develop a state program to
respond to mandates contained in federal statute shall, with
the assistance of the Department of Law, review the applicable
federal statutes, regulations, guidelines, and policies to
determine whether the federal government has exceeded its
constitutional authority to impose mandates on the state. If
it is determined that the federal government may have exceeded
its authority, the commissioner or agency head shall submit a
written report to the governor and the house and senate
judiciary committees setting out the basis for this
determination.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN added that there will be disagreements
concerning what the federal government might do that is good for
the state, but whether or not it is constitutional, is the question
here.
Number 300
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS asked if part of the recommendation is that
they could file suit against the federal government, if the
commission saw fit to do that.
CHAIR JAMES added that the Governor would be the one to file the
suit.
CHAIR JAMES had to leave for another meeting, so Representative
Ogan, Vice-Chair of the State Affairs Committee, took the Chair for
the rest of the meeting.
VICE-CHAIR OGAN asked for testimony from Molly Sherman who had
signed up to testify.
Number 335
MOLLY SHERMAN, Volunteer, Alaskan Environmental Lobby, and life
long Alaskan, testified against HB 83. Ms. Sherman said they have
19 member agencies throughout the state, and there are almost 2,000
members. Below is the written statement from Alaska Environmental
Lobby, Inc.
"The Alaskan Environmental Lobby strongly supports all
endeavors that serve to give the people in Alaska
opportunities to better manage all resources; human, physical
and spiritual. We feel there are many states' rights issues
that must be addressed, if we are going to move with
intelligence and consistency into the 21st Century.
"We also believe, as does the sponsor of this legislation that
the state government should `scrutinize the extent and scope
of authority asserted by the federal government' in many
areas.
"There are many examples of federal mandates where the
benefits to this state and its citizens, in economic, public
health and safety terms, have been substantial. Minimum
drinking age, compensatory schooling, safe working standards.
The U.S. Congress is not made up of raging environmentalists.
They have not conspired to keep Alaska from using its
resources, they are interested in the health and safety
concerns of all its citizens.
"It has been suggested that this legislation could save the
state money. We have been unable to determine how additional
administrative costs, forays into litigation with the federal
government and forfeiture of federally mandated monies will
help Alaskas economy. In a time when we all feel the need to
be frugal and fiscally responsible HB 83 seems uncertain.
"However, we feel that this can be done in less costly - in
real administrative costs and potential litigation charges -
and more efficient ways than those proposed in HB 83. It is
unnecessary to do this on statutory basis. State agencies are
already capable of telling us when a program is unnecessary,
over burdensome, overpriced and onerous. A legislator with a
specific concern is able to contact the specific agency and
get all the pertinent information. At a time when interagency
cooperation is stressed, this would seem a viable and
efficient alternative."
Number 383
JACK KREINHEDER, Senior Policy Analyst, Office of Management and
Budget in the Governors Office, offered some brief comments in
regard to HB 83. He noted that the bill was amended in the House
Special Committee on World Trade and the State-Federal Relations.
The intent was to make the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
the lead agency in the review of these federal mandates. They
prepared a corresponding fiscal note for it.
After establishing that the CS had been adopted, MR. KREINHEDER
addressed some concerns his office had, and he asked the committee
to respond, as to whether those concerns were addressed in the CS.
He assured Vice-Chair Ogan that the Administration is supportive
and in agreement with the legislatures concerns about the issue of
federal mandates, and, in particular, unfunded federal mandates.
Nevertheless, they have concerns pertaining to the process this
bill requires of them, with countless numbers of federal
requirements that could be interpreted as mandates, such as
requirements to have EXIT signs in every public building. The
concern is that an agency might have to review and write reports
about such issues as fire exit signs. Mr. Kreinheder said he would
be glad to work with the committee on specific wording, but it
should be something to the effect of federal mandates having a
significant fiscal or policy program impact on the state of Alaska,
to allow their agency to use some common sense determination about
what is an issue, as opposed to routine public safety types of
requirements.
Number 445
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked Mr. Kreinheder what happens now when
each department gets federal laws, which come to the state for a
determination. Her question was if there are other reviews in the
other departments.
MR. KREINHEDER responded there are two steps in the process. The
first step happens before the enactment of these laws and
requirements. They keep close coordination between the Governors
Office in Washington, D.C., with John Katz and his staff who
provide early warning on some of these requirements. Presently,
they are tracking the various block grant proposals in Congress to
see how they might affect the state. His office also works with
the Congressional Delegation on any input they wish to have into
those proposals. The second step comes after these proposals are
passed. Mr. Kreinheder said they continue to receive information
from the Washington office, but beyond that, he was not aware of
any formal reviewing process the departments are required to
follow. As far as he knew, it is largely up to the department as
to what kind of review process they would use for the mandates.
VICE-CHAIR OGAN said he would be happy to work with Mr. Kreinheder
on changing the language of the bill to avoid a major paper
shuffle. After all, the intent of this legislation is to
scrutinize potentially unconstitutional mandates and those which
cost the state large amounts of money.
Number 476
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER commented that the legislature has contracted
with someone to perform basically the same function for the
legislature that Mr. Katz is doing for the Administration. With
the positioning of our Congressional Delegation it seems an
appropriate time, in Representative Porters view, to try to
intercede during the time the bill is being considered in Congress,
as opposed to after it has been completed. He wondered if they
might consider some element of anticipation as opposed to response.
Number 489
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said that he would work with Mr. Kreinheder
to help get a CS ready for Judiciary along the lines discussed.
Representative Porter added that he should correct the motion he
made earlier to adopt CS, Version C. The version they should have
adopted was Version F, dated 2/10/95. With the permission of the
committee he said he would revise that motion. There was no
objection, so the motion passed.
Number 508
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said that since they adopted another CS they
would want to make a significant change in directions, pass the
bill out with a new fiscal note. He asked if he was correct in
thinking it will be a significantly different product when it
reaches the Judiciary Committee.
Number 514
VICE-CHAIR OGAN confirmed that there would be a significantly
different product.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN expressed concern that the committee will be
passing out a bill they know nothing about and would prefer they
hold it.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said she understood that instead of doing
a sweeping review of federal mandates, they are trying to cut back
on the number of programs to look at. They are looking at the
programs that have a more serious impact on the state, although she
was not sure who would determine what is serious and what is not.
Everything is the same except the numbers, or the types of programs
to review.
VICE-CHAIR OGAN supported Representative Robinsons view saying
they are merely cutting back the nonessential items to review.
Number 543
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN shared his views, but he needed to know what
kinds of changes are being made. He understood they want to
disregard the small, frivolous portions and key in on big costly
mandates; nevertheless, he would like to be more comfortable before
the bill is passed out of State Affairs.
Number 553
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said that in order to make HB 83 a
comprehensive bill, it would be appropriate to recognize what they
do as a legislature, as an Administration, and as a state, is try
to influence legislation at the federal level before it is passed.
That mechanism might provide the heads up to activate this type
of review, if our efforts to stop it on the federal level fail and
the legislation passes. To make this effective, we should do it
before the fact. He agreed with Representative Green they should
probably work on the bill at the committee level rather than to
move it on.
Number 578
VICE-CHAIR OGAN decided that he would work with different people on
the committee to draft some amendments for the bill, so he would
hold HB 83 over and go on to HJR 4.
HSTA - 02/21/95
HJR 4 - USE OF INITIATIVES TO AMEND CONSTITUTION
Number 619
TOM ANDERSON, Legislative Assistant to Representative Terry Martin,
testified on behalf of Representative Martin who was unable to
attend the meeting. He reviewed some previous discussion on HB 4
when the State Affairs Committee debated it, and reminded the
committee there was discussion on increasing the percentage of the
vote. He noted that Representative Green offered to submit an
amendment, which increases the voting of an initiative from
majority to 55 percent.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked someone to refresh her memory,
because she only remembered voting to increase the percentage to
two-thirds. Up to then, there had not been a new bill before the
committee that increased it to 55 percent. If they were to change
it to 55 percent, they were, in fact, rescinding their original
motion to change it to two-thirds. She stated that she objected to
the motion.
Number 635
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN mentioned offering an amendment after a
lengthy discussion with Mr. Anderson about whether frivolous
changes to the Constitution could be accomplished with a simple
majority vote. The other side of the debate stated that if it
required three-fourths or two-thirds, there would never be a
change. Constitutions are living documents as we have seen by our
Federal Constitution, and there have been significant changes. On
the whole, the changes have been good, and sometimes changes are
necessary. His reason for suggesting 55 percent is to try to
strike a balance of allowing the people to be heard when there is
a reason for change. It is conjectural, if they wanted something,
that they could get two-thirds, but he feels reasonably sure they
could get 55 percent of the votes.
Number 661
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS noted that he remains strong about a two-
thirds vote. It is historically acceptable, and has been since the
beginning of the nation concerning the federal institution. The
citizenry through the years has accepted it, and it is not
impossible to accomplish change under the two-thirds provision. He
said he will personally support the two-thirds vote.
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN responded to the debate by restating that the
democratic process is slow moving. He would like to see some
changes, and subsistence would be one change, and if they had a way
to take advantage of this legislation he said they would do it in
a heartbeat. However, looking at the balance of state population
this would be democratic process to the majority, but not for the
folks on the other side who are being governed, too.
MR. ANDERSON added that, currently, 18 states allow the initiative
process for amending of the constitution, and 6 more states allow
amending of the statutes in their process. All of these states
require a majority. He emphasized that none of these states have
this two-thirds - all of them are majority. If it is passed in the
House and Senate, we would be the only state requiring two-thirds
out of almost half that have the initiative process.
TAPE 95-18, SIDE B
Number 000
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said officials are able to debate the issue
and understand what is being discussed, and then vote. The problem
with requiring this of the general public is that often the public
is not aware; they dont listen to debate. They expect their
elected officials to go through that rigorous exercise. He
believes that is why a simple majority has been used so frequently
when dealing with the public, as opposed to higher standards for
elected official groups. By adhering rigidly to the higher
percentage he thinks we will not only grind exceedingly slow, we
may grind to a halt.
Number 031
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said in some ways, Representative Green was
advocating the two-thirds, because if there was a real need to
change the Constitution, which she agrees is sacred, it would be
the responsibility of the group who introduced the initiative to
educate enough people to get the two-thirds vote; also to convince
them it is in the best interest of the state. This is so important
that she believes it should be a higher standard.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he did not intend to support the
amendment. He supported the two-thirds, because he thought it
would eliminate this bill. He said he does not like the initiative
process. In his opinion, if people are to vote on changes to the
Constitution, the legislature should go through the arduous process
of considering an amendment by two-thirds vote.
VICE-CHAIR OGAN stated that an amendment was before the committee,
offered by Representative Green, to delete majority and insert
at least 55 percent. He wondered if it was in error, since they
amended this to two-thirds.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN objected, saying the document was amended once
and could be amended again. In order to be precise, the amendment
should be voted down.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said her impression was that they had
already changed it to two-thirds. Therefore, the appropriate
amendment should be to delete two-thirds majority and insert 55
percent.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he would then recommend modifying his
amendment to delete two-thirds and insert at least 55 percent.
Vice Chair Ogan declared it so moved.
VICE-CHAIR OGAN requested a roll call vote. REPRESENTATIVES
PORTER, ROBINSON, WILLIS and OGAN voted against of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN voted in favor of the amendment.
Number 140
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON voted to hold the bill over in committee.
There were no objections, so the motion to hold the bill passed.
HSTA - 02/21/95
HB 44 - GAMING PROCEEDS/DEFINE CHARITABLE ORGNS
MR. ANDERSON stated that he was there to represent Representative
Martin, who could not attend; however, because of a subcommittee
conflict, Mr. Anderson gave it over to Representative Porter.
Number 171
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated that the subcommittee met last week
and basically tried to amalgamate the two bills they had to
consider. The consensus of the committee succeeded in doing that
and came forward with this bill. It does four things. The
committee excluded raffles from the consideration, when restricting
gaming proceeds. As opposed to bingo and pull tabs, anyone buying
a raffle ticket can make an intelligent choice about who or what
they are supporting on an individual basis. So, raffles are
unchanged. Another consideration was about who should have these
gaming permits. They left in place those who currently qualify for
permits. The intent was to get gaming proceeds out of politics, so
the bill provides, first, that political parties or political
groups cannot have permits, and, secondly, they cannot receive from
those who do, the proceeds of gaming. With assistance to that, the
bill provides that anyone with a license who also makes political
contributions, is prohibited from giving those proceeds to
candidates or political parties or groups. They must also report
to the Division of Gaming what their contributions are.
Number 230
VICE-CHAIR OGAN said that he had calls from various people in his
district over the concern of 501-Cs losing their gambling permits.
He asked if this will affect them in any way.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER noted that the only people who had gaming
permits who now cannot are political parties, political groups, and
political candidates.
VICE-CHAIR OGAN asked about the reporting methods that will be used
to keep from co-mingling funds. His concern was if there is a
reasonable reporting method for groups that make political
contributions; for instance, separate checking accounts.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER explained that gaming proceeds have to be
maintained in a separate account. Disbursements in that account
must be reported to the Division of Gaming. If someone with a
permit has a net return of $50,000, the report has to show where
the $50,000 went. The intent is for charity, so the disbursement
must be to charitable organizations or they risk being audited.
The expenses allowed before this bill came into existence are the
same.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said that once they passed this bill there
will probably be new regulations drafted that would set out those
parameters. There are accounting rules on how you do not co-mingle
funds. She thought they might need to ask the department.
Number 301
JEFF PRATHER, Acting Director of Charitable Gaming, Department of
Revenue, came forward to answer questions about HB 44, and to
explain the procedure used to record proceeds from gaming.
Currently, they require all profits from gaming to be deposited in
a separate bank account. Profits could be transferred from a
gaming account to the organizations bank account, then donated to
politicians or political parties. Consequently, they would have to
implement a regulation, which allowed the department to examine the
organizations operating accounts. This was to assure that the
proceeds were not used for unintended purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS expressed curiosity about the percentage of
the proceeds that actually go to the charities compared to the
percentage used by the operators.
MR. PRATHER replied that the operators often do not report their
proceeds or fees to the department. Fees and expense categories
such as rent, are hidden, and the department has not yet succeeded
in getting them to report what they are actually making. In answer
to Representative Robinsons question about a fiscal note, Mr.
Prather said there is a zero fiscal note.
Number 356
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON mentioned hearing from somewhere that the
Governor will be establishing a committee to research issues
regarding the amount of money going to charities.
MR. PRATHER verified that which Representative Robinson heard,
saying the Governor had established a charitable gaming task force
to investigate the money going into charities. The first meeting
of the task force will be March 16, 1995, and a final report is due
to the Governor on May 16, 1995.
Number 361
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER shared a comment, saying that this is one
reason the subcommittee did not delve too deeply into the statute.
The committees mission was to preclude contributions going to
politicians from gaming proceeds, which they succeeded in doing.
Number 376
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN asked for an at ease, and VICE-CHAIR OGAN
allowed him a few minutes.
Number 382
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER added for the record that the only people who
will be excluded from having a gambling permit are political groups
formed for the purpose of electing candidates. Political
subdivisions can retain their permits for raising funds for their
political entities.
VICE-CHAIR OGAN pointed out that he received a letter from the
Alaska State Home Builders Association whose concern was that they
are 501-C and whether they would be ineligible to have charitable
gaming permits.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said the original version of HB 44 limited
the people who would qualify to get a permit. Except for political
parties, the subcommittee did not altered that.
Number 408
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said, for the record, she appreciated
Representatives Ivan, Porter and James for their willingness to
take another direction on this bill. She believes this takes care
of the concern about what most legislators felt, and about the
perception of politicians receiving gaming money. She appreciated
the work the subcommittee did; it is now a better bill.
Number 430
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved to accept the CS for HB 44, Version C,
LS023-3, as the working document. There were no objections, so the
motion passed. Then he moved that the committee move the CS for HB
44, the charitable gaming bill, with individual recommendations and
fiscal note. Hearing no objection, the motion passed.
HSTA - 02/21/95
HB 127 - 120-DAY JAIL: ASSAULT ON OFFICERS
Number 450
BRUCE CAMPBELL from Representative Pete Kellys staff came forward
to testify on HB 127 in Representative Kellys absence. Mr.
Campbell read the Sponsor Statement for HB 127, as follows:
An act increasing the minimum term of imprisonment for
assaults of the fourth degree committed against a peace
officer, fire fighter, correctional officer, emergency medical
technician, paramedic, ambulance attendant, or other emergency
responders.
"It is the intent of this bill to enhance a serious tool for
police officers and others on the front line. It will
increase the severity of punishment for acts committed against
a police officer while in the performance of official duties.
"This bill sends a clear message to individuals that once the
police arrive the fight must stop. Alaska is not sending in
our `tag team blue' for the next round. Expanding the fracas
to include a police officer will result in jail time.
"This bill also discourages an officer from `engaging in a
fair fight.' There is no reason for such a fight to continue,
and this bill makes that quite clear.
"Although initially intended as a tool for police, it has even
more meaning when applied to individuals with even less
training or expectation of dealing with persons physically.
Volunteers responding to a medical emergency, or fire, are
neither equipped nor trained to handle assault or violence
directed against their persons."
VICE-CHAIR OGAN announced that Tom Stern from the State Troopers
was on-line to testify.
Number 470
MAJOR TOM STEARNS, Deputy Director, Alaska State Troopers,
Department of Public Safety, testified via teleconference from
Anchorage in support of HB 127. He voiced support from the entire
Division of State Troopers. Colonel Godfrey had asked him to voice
the Division of State Troopers support of the bill. The Colonel
had several conversations with public safety leaders across the
state, including Chief of Police, John Newell from Sitka, also the
President of the Alaska Association of the Chiefs of Police. They
are very supportive of HB 127, as well.
Number 487
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN asked a question concerning the Village Public
Safety Officers. He wondered if they fit under the definition of
peace officer in HB 127.
MAJOR STEARNS said they are not considered police officers and
would not fall under this; however, the department responds to
every assault on Village Public Safety Officers and makes arrests
for all assaults. He said, to answer a question put by
Representative Robinson, that it is departments position when they
charge someone with assault to bring it to the District Attorneys
Office. Generally, the assault on an officer is prosecuted.
VICE-CHAIR OGAN asked about the statistics on the amount of people
charged, per year, for this type of crime. He also asked Major
Stearn if he thought this legislation would help.
Number 508
MAJOR STEARNS said the department tracks assaults and there are
somewhere between 50 and 70 assaults on troopers lodged as
complains annually. He said he would hope this legislation will
help to reduce these crimes.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER congratulated Major Sterns on his
appointment, then confirmed with him that Village Public Safety
Officers (VPSO) are still considered peace officers. He said the
bill defines peace officers, so they would be covered in the bill.
MAJOR STEARNS responded to Vice-Chair Ogans question, about the
difference between a fourth degree assault and a third degree
assault, saying that fourth degree assault is a higher degree of
danger and threat by instrument.
Number 547
JOE DAMEKO, First Sergeant, Alaska State Troopers, Department of
Public Safety, came before the committee to testify about a statute
defining the various degrees of assault. He said the general
difference between third degree and fourth degree assault is that
the third degree assault is prosecuted as a felony. It is usually
as a result of either a serious physical injury to the victim, or
that a dangerous instrument or weapon was used against the victim.
A third degree assault would also include an eminent fear of
serious physical injury; for instance, if someone were to point a
gun at a person and threaten to kill them. Fourth degree assaults
are generally the punching, kicking, and the scratches that police
officers often receive in the process of making an arrest. He said
that assaults on peace officers are increasing, and most are
alcohol related.
Number 576
VICTOR GUNN, Deputy Chief, Fairbanks City Police Department, also
offered support of HB 127 by telephone. He felt that higher
penalties for assault will reduce attacks on police officers.
Generally, people are aware that there is a minimum jail time for
assaulting a police officer, and it is far above what they would
get for assaulting an average citizen. The theory applies to
capital crimes committed against police officers or correctional
officers; if a person is willing to assault a representative of the
publics peace, think of what they would do to someone else. That
is what he bases his testimony on. An officer in uniform
represents society, and when a person is willing to assault a
police officer, he is willing to assault society.
VICE-CHAIR OGAN shared that he is a fire fighter and they also get
into difficult situations. He is glad to see fire fighters
included in the bill.
Number 648
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he was pleased to make the motion to
pass HB 127 out of committee with individual recommendations.
Hearing no objection, the motion passed.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON commented that she was for the bill and had
no objections; however, she did not want anyone under the illusion
that this bill will change anything. Even so, it is a good policy
to change the law.
HSTA - 02/21/95
HB 90 - CONVENING LEGISLATURE AFTER GOV ELECTION
Number 643
REPRESENTATIVE BETTYE DAVIS came before the committee with her
bill, HB 90. She submitted the following position statement:
"The Knowles Administration supports HB 90. This bill would
shift the beginning date of legislative sessions following
gubernatorial elections by one day, in order to avoid having
the opening day of the session on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day.
"Although the legislature often meets on other national
holidays in the midst of the legislative session, in this
instance all that is required to accommodate the Martin Luther
King, Jr. holiday is to move the start of the session by one
day every four years. The Administration believes that this
change would minimally impact legislature business, and would
allow legislators, legislative staff and other state employees
to appropriately honor and celebrate the birth of this great
civil rights leader. In addition, this bill would result in
some cost savings from a reduction in holiday overtime
required to be paid to some employees who now must work on the
holiday.
"Alaska is geographically far removed from the heart of the
civil rights movement in which Martin Luther King, Jr. Played
such an important leadership role. Still, the rights of
equality and freedom for all, which he advocated, are as
central to the spirit of Alaska as to any state in the union.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS added that the fiscal note was included and
that it would mean a $5,570 savings to the state.
Number 677
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON made a motion to move HB 90 out of
committee with individual recommendations. There was no discussion
and no objection, so the motion passed. Vice-Chair Ogan added that
it was a good bill, and a good way to honor a good American.
HSTA - 02/21/95
HB 30 - SCHOOL DRESS CODES
Number 699
REPRESENTATIVE BETTYE DAVIS, Prime sponsor of HB 30, said the bill
passed in other states, and she has received letters from students
about the right to choose what they wear. Representative Davis
read one letter from a student in Togiak, Alaska, who wrote against
any mandate that told them what they could wear. Many other
students wrote letters against the bill, but after receiving more
information, most of the students understood the reason for the
bill.
TAPE 95-19, SIDE A
Number 001
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commented on the dress code issue, saying, if
students wore uniforms, it might make them targets for drive-by
shootings.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS had not heard of anything like that happening.
California passed the bill and the state of California is where
they could get that kind of information. Drive-by shootings may
happen, but they normally are not caused by dress codes. She
thought it would instill pride, and it would also alleviate peer
pressure, especially for students from low income families and
people in villages.
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN was pleased about the letter from the student.
The person was one of his constituents, and spoke of his position.
Number 110
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS mentioned an informal dress code in his high
school days. They wore light colored corduroy pants and all their
friends would sign their names on the pants. The object was to
never let your mother get a hold of those pants to wash them.
Mothers were the only targets, or rather, we were the only targets
for our mothers.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said there are so many things children are
conscious of today that have to do with dress: Designer clothes,
all which cost more than parents can afford. There are also kids
stealing jackets and shoes.
Number 142
VICE-CHAIR OGAN expressed that there was some questionable language
in the bill, primarily about the necessity of the health and safety
of students or teachers of a district.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS answered that it could protect teachers, since
it would do away with colors and gang activity clothing being worn
in the inner-city. There are problems in some districts. In
Anchorage, they are having some drive-by shootings, and gang
fights. They have identified many gangs.
VICE-CHAIR OGAN said he had a problem giving school boards the
authority to require their students to wear uniforms.
Number 180
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS denied that the bill gives the school board
authority to mandate anything. Rather, it will give the schools
themselves the authority if they choose it. They cannot mandate
anything. It is a choice to wear uniforms or not.
Number 195
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON made a motion to move HB 30 out of
committee with individual recommendations. She said that it goes
to the HESS committee next, for another review. After a short
recess, the committee decided the bill should remain in committee
for further consideration. Representative Robinson retracted her
motion and moved that the committee hold HB 30 in committee. There
were no objections, so the motion passed.
HSTA - 02/21/95
HB 130 - REGULATION ADOPTION PROCEDURES & REVIEW
Number 230
BRUCE CAMPBELL, Legislative Aide to Representative Pete Kelly,
spoke on behalf of Representative Kelly on HB 130. HB 130 is one
of three bills on regulation reform, which matches with the other
bills quite well, even though all three were independently drafted.
He put a sponsor statement before the committee.
Number 247
VICE-CHAIR OGAN spoke of another regulation reform bill now in a
subcommittee, saying the Chairperson expressed an interest in
referring this bill to that subcommittee for review. This is an
extensive bill.
Number 285
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said the Chair wanted the bill reviewed, as
a whole, in subcommittee to see how it fits in with the picture.
There are several options, and it might be that the subcommittee
will wish to create one bill to send through, or perhaps it will
decide to send one bill out and hold the other one.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KELLY arrived and gave a summary of what HB 130
is intended to accomplish. He said this bill is different from the
other bill in the committee, and he could not be sure if they are
mergeable. HB 130 is possibly a stop-gap measure for larger
changes later. It is a system that can be set in place now, since
it works with the present system. It is tweaking of the system
rather than changing the system, or making a major or complete
change. This bill attempts to reform regulations by doing two
things: By empowering the Lieutenant Governor to do certain
things, and requiring that he do certain things. It also goes to
the regulation writing process and gives the agencies some
guidelines while they are writing regulations. HB 130 attempts
overall, to make elected officials accountable for the regulations
that are written. Normally, legislators write the statutes, they
go to the Governor, then they go to the agencies where they are
written and then they are turned into regulations. They are
finally given to the Lieutenant Governor who has no choice but to
file those regulations whether they are good or bad. HB 130
attempts to put the legislature back in the loop of the regulation
writing process without infringing on any separations of power.
The Lieutenant Governor looks at the regulations and then has to
turn draft regulations over to the legislative regulation review
committee. That committee makes certain recommendations, they can
call in expert testimony, they can weigh the public will through
hearings, then they can turn them back to the Lieutenant Governor.
The Lieutenant Governor can file the regulation or turn it back to
agencies if it is determined that the regulation is not acceptable.
It holds the official politically accountable. At this point in
the process, if it is a bad regulation everyone is going to know
about it. It is holding the Lieutenant Governor accountable, and
it gives the legislative review committee an opportunity to stop
bad legislation before it becomes law.
Number 398
VICE-CHAIR OGAN offered a suggestion to get some visuals, charts
and graphs to the subcommittee, and asked if Representative Kelly
objected to the committee sending his bill to the subcommittee.
Representative Kelly had no objection.
ADJOURNMENT
VICE-CHAIR OGAN adjourned the meeting at 10:06 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|