Legislature(1995 - 1996)
01/30/1996 08:00 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
January 30, 1996
8:00 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
All members present.
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
* HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 52
Relating to the creation of a new United States Court of Appeals
for the Twelfth Circuit.
- PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 382
"An Act extending the termination date of the Board of Dispensing
Opticians; and providing for an effective date."
- PASSED CSHB 382(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 404
"An Act extending the termination date of the Board of Chiropractic
Examiners; and providing for an effective date."
- PASSED CSHB 404(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 405
"An Act extending the termination date of the Board of Examiners in
Optometry; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
* HOUSE BILL NO. 75
"An Act relating to criminal mischief."
- PASSED SSHB 75 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 368
"An Act relating to election campaigns, election campaign
financing, the oversight and regulation of election campaigns by
the Alaska Public Offices Commission, the activities of lobbyists
that relate to election campaigns, and the definitions of offenses
of campaign misconduct; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 317
"An Act relating to election campaigns, election campaign
financing, the oversight and regulation of election campaigns by
the Alaska Public Offices Commission, the activities of lobbyists
that relate to election campaigns, and the definitions of offenses
of campaign misconduct; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HJR 52
SHORT TITLE: CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR 12TH CIRCUIT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) PORTER, Rokeberg
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/09/96 2392 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/09/96 2392 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY
01/10/96 2404 (H) COSPONSOR(S): ROKEBERG
01/30/96 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 382
SHORT TITLE: EXTEND BOARD OF DISPENSING OPTICIANS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) JAMES
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
12/29/95 2366 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/08/96 2366 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/08/96 2366 (H) STATE AFFAIRS
01/16/96 2451 (H) STA RPT 3DP 3NR
01/16/96 2451 (H) DP: JAMES, IVAN, ROBINSON
01/16/96 2451 (H) NR: PORTER, GREEN, OGAN
01/16/96 2451 (H) FISCAL NOTE (DCED)
01/16/96 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
01/16/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
01/17/96 2472 (H) FIN REFERRAL ADDED
01/17/96 2472 (H) REFERRED TO FIN
01/24/96 (H) FIN AT 01:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
01/24/96 2527 (H) RETURNED TO STATE AFFAIRS
01/25/96 (H) FIN AT 01:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
01/30/96 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 404
SHORT TITLE: EXTENDING BOARD OF CHIROPRACTORS
SPONSOR(S): LABOR & COMMERCE
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/09/96 2392 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/09/96 2392 (H) STATE AFFAIRS
01/16/96 2451 (H) STA RPT 4DP 3NR
01/16/96 2451 (H) DP: JAMES, IVAN, ROBINSON, WILLIS
01/16/96 2451 (H) NR: PORTER, GREEN, OGAN
01/16/96 2451 (H) FISCAL NOTE (DCED)
01/16/96 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
01/16/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
01/17/96 2472 (H) FIN REFERRAL ADDED
01/17/96 2472 (H) REFERRED TO FIN
01/24/96 (H) FIN AT 01:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
01/24/96 2527 (H) RETURNED TO STATE AFFAIRS
01/25/96 (H) FIN AT 01:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
01/30/96 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 405
SHORT TITLE: EXTEND BOARD OF OPTOMETRISTS
SPONSOR(S): LABOR & COMMERCE
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/09/96 2392 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/09/96 2392 (H) STATE AFFAIRS
01/16/96 2452 (H) STA RPT 4DP 3NR
01/16/96 2452 (H) DP: JAMES, IVAN, ROBINSON, WILLIS
01/16/96 2452 (H) NR: PORTER, GREEN, OGAN
01/16/96 2452 (H) FISCAL NOTE (DCED)
01/16/96 2452 (H) REFERRED TO RULES
01/16/96 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
01/16/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
01/17/96 2472 (H) FIN REFERRAL ADDED
01/17/96 2472 (H) REFERRED TO FIN
01/24/96 (H) FIN AT 01:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
01/24/96 2527 (H) RETURNED TO STATE AFFAIRS
01/25/96 (H) FIN AT 01:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
01/30/96 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 75
SHORT TITLE: INCREASED PENALTIES FOR JOYRIDING
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) SANDERS, Finkelstein, Kott
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/06/95 40 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/16/95 40 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/95 40 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
01/25/95 136 (H) COSPONSOR(S): FINKELSTEIN
01/19/96 2494 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KOTT
01/25/96 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
01/26/96 2540 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED-REFERRALS
01/26/96 2540 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
01/30/96 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 368
SHORT TITLE: ELECTION CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) JAMES
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
12/29/95 2362 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/08/96 2362 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/08/96 2362 (H) STA, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
01/25/96 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
01/25/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
01/30/96 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 317
SHORT TITLE: ELECTION CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) FINKELSTEIN
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
04/21/95 1427 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/21/95 1427 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
01/08/96 2358 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED-REFERRALS
01/08/96 2358 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
01/25/96 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
01/25/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
01/30/96 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
JIM BALDWIN, Assistant Attorney General
Governmental Affairs Section
Civil Division
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
Telephone: (907) 465-3600
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HJR 52.
CHARLES E. COLE, Attorney at Law
Law Offices of Charles E. Cole
406 Cushman Street
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Telephone: (907) 452-1124
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HJR 52.
WALT WILCOX, Committee Aide
House State Affairs Committee
State Capitol, Room 102
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-3743
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 382, HB 404 and HB
405.
CATHERINE REARDON, Director
Division of Occupational Licensing
Central Office
Department of Commerce and Economic Development
P.O. Box 110806
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0806
Telephone: (907) 465-2534
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 382, HB 404 and HB
405.
RANDY WELKER, Legislative Auditor
Legislative Audit Division
Legislative Agencies and Offices
P.O. Box 113300
Juneau, Alaska 99800-3300
Telephone: (907) 465-3820
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 382, HB 404 and HB
405.
JEANNE LOVELL, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Jerry Sanders
State Capitol, Room 414
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-4945
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor statement for HB 75.
JERRY SHRINER, Special Assistant
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Corrections
240 Main Street, Suite 700
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4640
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 75.
DEL SMITH, Deputy Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Public Safety
P.O. Box 111200
Juneau, Alaska 99811-1200
Telephone: (907) 465-4322
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 75.
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General
Central Office
Criminal Division
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
Telephone: (907) 465-3428
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 75.
DIANE WORLEY, Director
Central Office
Division of Family and Youth Services
Department of Health and Social Services
P.O. Box 110630
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0630
Telephone: (907) 465-3191
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 75.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 424
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-2435
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 368 and HB 317.
BROOKE MILES, Regulation of Lobbying
Public Offices Commission
Department of Administration
P.O. Box 110222
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0222
Telephone: (907) 465-4864
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 368.
ROBERT GIGLER
7447 Obriens
Anchorage, Alaska 99507
Telephone number not provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 368.
FRANK SMITH
P.O. Box 1199
Barrow, Alaska 99723
Telephone: (907) 852-4983
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 368.
ANALEE MCCONNELL, Director
Office of the Director
Office of Management and Budget
Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 110001
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0001
Telephone: (907) 465-4660
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments on the supplemental
appropriation on the federal shortfall.
JOHN KATZ, Special Counsel
Washington D.C. Office
Office of the Governor
444 North Capitol NW, Suite 336
Washington D.C. 20001-1512
Telephone: (206) 624-5858
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments on the supplemental
appropriation on the federal shortfall.
MARTHA STEWART, Special Assistant
Washington D.C. Office
Office of the Governor
444 North Capitol NW, Suite 336
Washington D.C. 20001-1512
Telephone: (206) 624-5858
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments on the supplemental
appropriation on the federal shortfall.
JANET CLARK, Director
Central Office
Division of Administrative Services
Department of Health and Social Services
P.O. Box 110650
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0650
Telephone: (907) 465-3082
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments on the supplemental
appropriation on the federal shortfall.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-06, SIDE A
Number 0000
The House State Affairs Committee was called to order by Chair
Jeannette James at 8:00 a.m. Members present at the call to order
were Representatives James, Green, Ivan, Porter, and Willis.
Members absent at the call to order were Representatives Ogan and
Robinson.
HJR 52 - CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR 12TH CIRCUIT
The first order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Committee was HJR 52.
CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES called on Representative Brian Porter,
sponsor of HJR 52.
Number 0088
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER said HJR 52 was a resolution that would
put Alaska on record with the United States Congress which supports
splitting the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit into two
circuits. He referred the committee members to the map in the bill
file titled "The Thirteen Federal Judicial Circuits." He explained
at the federal level the district court was akin to Alaska's
superior court. He also explained there were two levels of appeal
in the federal system - the circuit court and the Supreme Court.
He further explained the circuit courts were established decades
ago based on population. The population had increased, and as far
back as 1973 a federal commission recommended splitting the Court
of Appeals for the Fifth and Ninth Circuits. Consequently, the
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit was split creating the Court
of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The commission recommended
administrative changes for the Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit which he alleged were not working. He further explained in
the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit there were 27 judges, 17
judges in the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and as few as
6 judges in the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The judges
in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit were divided into
panels, he explained, hearing cases by specialty. However, this
created inconsistent decisions on the same points of law.
Consequently, it was very expensive and difficult to practice law
in Alaska. The five states that comprised the proposed Court of
Appeals for the Twelfth Circuit were Alaska, Washington, Oregon,
Idaho, and Montana. In conclusion he announced all five attorneys
general from the states supported the notion.
Number 0470
CHAIR JAMES announced the presence of Representatives Ogan and
Robinson.
Number 0488
REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON asked the status of the corresponding
legislation in Congress.
Number 0509
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said HJR 52 supported S.956. S.956 divided
the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit creating the Court of
Appeals for the Twelfth Circuit. He stated, California, Arizona,
Hawaii, Nevada, the Mariana Islands, and Guam would remain in the
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Number 0562
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked how the circuit judges would be
divided and if the division would be dictated by legislation.
Number 0576
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER responded it would be decided based on case
load. He stated it was best if they split the court for groups of
judges instead of all of them. He cited the 27 judges in the Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit lived in the Los Angeles area. He
alluded no matter where the judges originally came from, after
living in Los Angeles they became "Californians." He further
asserted it was affecting the laws.
Number 0635
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if the judges would reside in one of
the states that comprised the proposed Court of Appeals for the
Twelfth Circuit.
Number 0640
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER replied the state of Washington would
probably be the seat for the proposed Court of Appeals for the
Twelfth Circuit was a lot closer than California.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON alleged judges residing in Washington would
have a better understanding of Alaska.
Number 0673
REPRESENTATIVE ED WILLIS asked if the judges had to live in a
particular district to be appointed.
Number 0684
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER replied they looked at applicants from the
general area and circuit.
Number 0706
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS asked if an Alaskan had ever been appointed
to a seat in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Number 0708
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he did not know, but Charlie Cole,
Attorney at Law, would be able to answer the question. He also
announced Jim Baldwin, Assistant Attorney General, was here in
place of Bruce Botelho, Attorney General to testify on HJR 52.
Number 0744
JIM BALDWIN, Assistant Attorney General, Government Affairs
Section, Civil Division, Government Affairs Section, Department of
Law, said the Attorney General wanted to be here himself but was
detained in Seattle. He stated the Department of Law supported HJR
52. Mr. Baldwin alleged a locally oriented court of appeals would
benefit Alaska. He said it was important the appellate courts
reflected the socioeconomic attitudes of the different regions.
The attitudes, he stated, shaped the development of laws. He
further said the attention of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit focused on the more populace western states and needed to
be broken into a smaller unit to reflect the case load. He cited
22 percent of the cases now pending before the Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit were from Alaska, California, Washington, Oregon
and Montana. In conclusion, he reiterated, the department
supported HJR 52 and would support the committee in any way
possible.
Number 0935
CHARLES E. COLE, Attorney at Law, Law Offices of Charles E. Cole,
said he supported the geographic dismantle proposed in HJR 52 of
the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. He referred to his
written statement to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee and asked
it be part of the record. He further stated the Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit was the largest district and expanded from
Tucson to Point Barrow. He asserted there was no particular reason
why Congress could not split the Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit based on geography alone as it had done so before in the
past. He further stated the decisions from California, for
example, dealing with Alaska and the northwest were interpreted in
a bizarre fashion. He alleged there was not a subjective "pulse"
of the various considerations of the statutes. He cited the
Kenaitze panel referenced The Milepost to define the term "rural."
He said it was defined as, "the vast areas of the U.S. where
agriculture and ranching predominate." He stated this definition
did not reflect to Alaska except maybe for the area near Palmer.
He also cited the Totemoff decision whereby the Alaska court
reached the opposite opinion. Mr. Cole said he was not criticizing
the results of the decisions, but rather the judicial
craftsmanship. In conclusion, he stated, the judges in the Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit lacked a collegiality. He also
mentioned Alaskan Robert Boochever who served on the Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit did not support HJR 52.
Number 1370
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked how many cases resided and were
resolved at the court of appeals level, or was it just an avenue to
the Supreme Court.
Number 1390
MR. COLE replied it was the final repository for most decisions and
rarely did cases go to the Supreme Court. He, therefore, alleged
the final authority resided with the Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.
Number 1440
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN referred to previous testimony regarding
the definition of "rural" by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, and asked what rural Native Alaskans could expect if HJR
52 was passed.
Number 1488
MR. COLE replied the rural constituencies could expect decisions
emanated from a greater familiarity of issues such as subsistence
compared to decisions emanated from judges residing in Los Angeles.
Number 1560
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked Mr. Cole if he knew where S.956 was
in the legislative process. She also asked if there was a way to
be sure judges appointed to the proposed Court of Appeals for the
Twelfth Circuit would understand Alaska.
Number 1580
MR. COLE replied he did not know where S.956 was in the process.
He also suggest Arizona should shift to the same circuit district
as California. Mr. Cole further replied the appointment of the
judges were left to the Alaskan Congressional delegates as they
were appointed at the federal level.
Number 1640
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated S.956 just passed out of the U.S.
Senate Judiciary Committee. He further announced the population in
the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was 45 million, and
suggested by population alone the argument was strong enough to
create a new one.
Number 1680
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved that HJR 52 move from the committee with
zero fiscal note and individual recommendations. Hearing no
objection, HJR 52 was moved out of the House State Affairs
Committee.
HB 382 - EXTEND BOARD OF DISPENSING OPTICIANS
HB 404 - EXTENDING BOARD OF CHIROPRACTORS
HB 405 - EXTEND BOARD OF OPTOMETRISTS
Number 1730
The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Committee was CSHB 382(STA), CSHB 404(STA), and CSHB 405(STA).
CHAIR JAMES called on Walter Wilcox, Committee Aide, House State
Affairs Committee.
WALTER WILCOX, Committee Aide, House State Affairs Committee, said
the three bills before them were returned to the House State
Affairs Committee by the House Finance Committee to incorporate the
recommendations of the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee
mentioned in the previous committee meeting. Mr. Wilcox said
Catherine Reardon, Director, Central Office, Division of
Occupational Licensing, Department of Commerce and Economic
Development reviewed and agreed with the recommendations as stated
in her memorandum dated January 24, 1996. He also referred the
committee members to the memorandum by Randy Welker, Legislative
Auditor, dated January 17, 1996, which summarized his suggestions.
He further said CSHB 382(STA), CSHB 404(STA), and CSHB 405(STA)
were given the same expiration date, the year 2002. He alleged the
only controversy was in CSHB 405(STA) between the optometrists and
dispensing opticians. He deferred to Ms. Reardon for additional
questions.
Number 1831
CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Central Office, Division of
Occupational Licensing, Department of Commerce and Economic
Development, said she did not want to overemphasize the conflict
between the optometrists and the dispensing opticians, but over the
years there had been the discussion if optometrists had to employee
opticians or apprentices in their office if they wanted staff to
dispense glasses and contacts. The audit suggested the issue be
put to rest. She said there were two bills that exempted the
employees of optometrists from the requirement in previous
sessions. The bills did not pass, however. She alleged the
discussion might delay the extension of the boards. In conclusion,
Ms. Reardon asserted the Department of Commerce and Economic
Development did not take a stand on this issue.
Number 1952
MR. WILCOX requested Ms. Reardon walk the committee through each
bill and discuss the changes.
Number 1968
MS. REARDON said CSHB 382(STA) extended the Board of Dispensing
Opticians to the year 2002. The rest of the bill, she stated,
addressed licensing requirements. The bill removed reciprocity and
established a licensure by credentials, whereby an optician
licensed in another state where requirements were substantially
equivalent to or higher than those of Alaska would be issued a
license without an examination. She said Section 5, page 2, AS
08.71.150, repealed the reciprocity statute.
Number 2060
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER asked if the bill being discussed was
the same bill as the committee previously discussed.
Number 2070
MR. WILCOX replied this was a committee substitute.
MS. REARDON answered the changes were the removal of licensure by
reciprocity, the fine tuning of licensure by credentials, and the
expiration date.
Number 2102
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved to adopt the committee substitute.
Hearing no objection, it was so adopted.
Number 2110
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved that CSHB 382(STA) move from the
committee with the attached fiscal note and individual
recommendations. Hearing no objection, it was moved out of the
House State Affairs Committee.
Number 2127
MR. WILCOX asked Ms. Reardon to clarify the changes to CSHB
404(STA).
Number 2133
MS. REARDON said the CSHB 404(STA) repealed the licensure by
credential option, which stated the board could issue a license
without examination with proof of a license in another state.
However, she announced, the board was not able to determine if the
exams were equivalent so consequently everyone was required to take
the examination. She asserted the repealed statutes would clear
the confusion.
Number 2186
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved the committee adopt the substitute and
move CSHB 404(STA) from the committee with the attached fiscal note
and individual recommendations. Hearing no objection, it was moved
out of the House State Affairs Committee.
Number 2220
MR. WILCOX said CSHB 405(STA) extended the date of the Board of
Optometry to the year 2002 and the recommendations suggested by the
Legislative Budget and Audit Committee were incorporated. He
stated CSHB 405(STA) was the controversial bill as Ms. Reardon
explained in her earlier testimony. Mr. Wilcox called on Ms.
Reardon to explain the changes.
Number 2230
MS. REARDON stated CSHB 405(STA) reflected the recommendations of
the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee. Section 2, she said,
deleted the application for an examination fifteen days before the
exam and allowed the division to establish the deadline to ease
administration. Section 3, she said, clarified the controversy
mentioned earlier as the substituted bill now read an optician must
be registered as an apprentice. Section 4, she stated, repealed
the licensing of branch offices. She said the board had not been
following this statute as it did not seem necessary to obtain a
different license for each branch office. Ms. Reardon further said
Section 4 repealed the 20/40 visual acuity and the infectious
disease provisions. It was recommended to delete the above
mentioned provisions due to the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA). Ms. Reardon asserted an optometrist found practicing with
an infectious disease without protection would be subject to
incompetence charges.
Number 2344
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if there was a similar requirement for
doctors and dentists.
Number 2350
MS. REARDON replied there was not a requirement to get a license.
She cited infectious diseases came and went, and at the point the
individual became infected it was necessary to exercise protection.
She reiterated it was not recommended as a licensing provision.
Number 2373
CHAIR JAMES mentioned the visual acuity requirement and asked if it
was possible a blind optician could do the required work.
Number 2381
MS. REARDON replied there were probably certain portions of the
work a blind optician could not perform. She further stated the
repeal of Section 4 did not require the employment of an individual
who could not perform the duties.
CHAIR JAMES responded Ms. Reardon was talking about an optician and
not an optometrist.
MS. REARDON apologized as she was confused about which sections
Chair James was referring to.
MS. REARDON again answered she was not sure if a blind optometrist
could perform successfully, but the opportunity needed to be
available.
Number 2451
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if it was difficult for an assistant as
mentioned in Section 3 to obtain a certificate.
TAPE 96-6, SIDE B
Number 0000
MS. REARDON read the following statement.
"An apprentice has to register with the department before beginning
employment as an apprentice and shall be in training and under the
direct supervision of a licensed physician optometrist or
dispensing optician. You may not serve as an apprentice for longer
than six years without advancing to your full optician license,
unless you get special permission from the board explaining why you
were not able to complete the program in the six years. No more
than two apprentices may be under the direct supervision of one
licensed dispensing optician at the same time."
MS. REARDON stated it might be a problem if individuals did not
want to advance to a licensed dispensing optician, but rather
continue as an apprentice.
Number 0014
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER inquired if an optometrist would have to
employee a licensed optician to supervise the apprentice.
Number 0023
MS. REARDON responded the statute read an apprentice could be
supervised by a licensed physician, optometrist, or dispensing
optician. She asserted it limited opticians, but not optometrists.
MS. REARDON read AS 08.72.181(b) into the record.
"An optometrist licensed in this state and serving in the military
service of the United States, while in the discharge of official
duties, may maintain eligibility to practice in this state without
paying a renewal fee by registering the optometrist's name and
place of residence with the department."
MR. WILCOX announced the repeal of the above read statute, AS
08.72.181(b), was removed from CSHB 405(STA).
MS. REARDON asked the committee members to ignore her recent
testimony as it had been removed from the bill. In conclusion, she
stated, there were only three repealers in Section 4, the branch
office licensing, the visual acuity, and the infectious disease
provisions.
Number 0103
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN asked if there were any witnesses to
testify on CSHB 405(STA).
Number 0114
MR. WILCOX replied Randy Welker, Division of Legislative Audit, was
here to answer any questions as well.
Number 0118
RANDY WELKER, Legislative Auditor, Legislative Audit Division,
Legislative Agencies and Offices, said he would be happy to answer
any questions.
Number 0131
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated he was interested in hearing from a
witness in the industry.
Number 0140
CHAIR JAMES asked if the issue in Section 3 of CSHB 405(STA) was
whether or not a person working for am optometrist needed to be an
apprenticed optician.
MR. WELKER responded Chair James was correct. He explained it did
not matter where an optician worked, the standards should be
applied to everyone in the field.
Number 0195
CHAIR JAMES stated the section required those working under a
dispensing optician needed to be licensed as an apprentice.
Number 0234
MR. WELKER responded Chair James was correct. He alleged the
registration as an apprentice was not an onerous task as it only
required the intention of licensure. He asserted Section 3 evened
the responsibility among everyone.
Number 0260
CHAIR JAMES asked if there were any opticians or optometrists to
testify, and wondered it they were aware of the changes.
Number 0272
MR. WILCOX replied there was testimony on the first bill, and said
he informed the head of the board. He further said CSHB 405(STA)
would be in the House Finance Committee next week where witnesses
would have the opportunity to testify.
Number 0283
CHAIR JAMES replied the House Finance Committee would not like the
bill to be passed on without proper review.
Number 0289
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he would like to hear from the industry
as well. He asked if there was the potential people might lose
their jobs now that certification was required. He commented he
was concerned about the people already working under the old
statute and how it would affect them.
Number 0312
MR. WELKER said the six year clock would start upon registration as
an apprentice.
Number 0325
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked what the standard of practice was in
other states. She also inquired what would happen to individuals
who did not want to progress in their current position.
Number 0342
MR. WELKER replied it was first necessary to determine if the field
of opticinary required licensing. He stated less than half of the
states in the U.S. licensed opticians. If it was deemed necessary
to require licensure then, he asserted, it was necessary to require
everyone to follow accordingly no matter where they worked. He
further said the issue had been debated before and the department
always agreed it was necessary for the public's best interest to
require licensing.
Number 0390
CHAIR JAMES wondered if there were any claims of injury from the
public as a direct result of an optician not being licensed.
Number 0425
MR. WELKER said he was not aware of any significant concern.
Number 0430
MS. REARDON said there were complaints about unlicensed practice.
She offered to call the investigator for further information.
Number 0444
CHAIR JAMES asserted she would like to hold CSHB 405(STA) until the
committee heard testimony from the industry.
Number 0465
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if there was a problem with the
extension date.
CHAIR JAMES replied the extension date was extended to the year
2002.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if a delay would interfere with the
extension of the board.
MR. WILCOX replied, no, because the bill did not expire until June
30, 1996.
Number 0475
MR. WILCOX stated the last issue to address was penalties for
practicing without a license. He said a bill would be read today
on the floor addressing that issue.
Number 0488
CHAIR JAMES said the issue was not incorporated into the bills
because it was a broad subject that encompassed all occupational
licenses.
Porter 0494
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER suggested putting Section 3 of CSHB 405(STA)
in the above mentioned bill, and leave CSHB 405(STA) as an
extension of the board only.
Number 0500
CHAIR JAMES said that was a possible option.
HB 75 - INCREASED PENALTIES FOR JOYRIDING
Number 0510
The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Committee was SSHB 75.
CHAIR JAMES called on Jeanne Lovell, Legislative Assistant to
Representative Jerry Sanders to present the sponsor substitute
statement.
JEANNE LOVELL, Legislative Assistant to Representative Jerry
Sanders, said Representative Sanders was detained in Anchorage.
Ms. Lovell read the following statement into the record.
"Sponsor Substitute for House Bill 75 labels those who take cars
belonging to others as what they are -- thieves -- not joy riders
or pranksters. It increases the penalty for the crime of vehicle
theft to a C Felony with one minor exception (first offense snow
machines).
"This bill provides a strong deterrent for those who might
otherwise commit vehicle theft. Generally, under current law,
those caught "joy riding" can only be convicted of a Class A
Misdemeanor. The current law ties the hands of police and provides
no deterrent for the car thief unless they cause $500 damage or it
is their second offense.
"By increasing the crime of "joy riding" to a felony, SSHB 75
provides a strong deterrent necessary to prevent Alaska's youth
from participating in vehicle theft and it gives the justice system
the tools with which to make car thieves responsible for their
actions.
"There are other bills currently under consideration regarding
vehicle theft issues. However, I, Representative Sanders, feel the
SSHB 75 best serves the public interest because it is a compromise
bill that stands the best chance of addressing the concerns of both
the legislature and the administration."
Number 0661
CHAIR JAMES said there was a day when steeling a horse was a
hanging offense and now people drove cars.
Number 0677
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Ms. Lovell to explain the revisions in
SSHB 75.
Number 0692
MS. LOVELL deferred the question to Jerry Shriner, Special
Assistant, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Corrections.
Number 0703
JERRY SHRINER, Special Assistant, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Corrections, said the fiscal note expended about
three million dollars. He stated two million related to the
provision that made a second offense a class B felony with a four
years sentence. SSHB 75 changed it so a second offense was a class
C felony with a two years sentence. It was the cost difference
between the Class B and Class C Felony charges reflected in the
fiscal note.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness, Del Smith, Deputy
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Public
Safety.
Number 0757
DEL SMITH, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Public Safety, said the department supported SSHB 75.
He said it had been called "joy riding" for far too long, and
sounded like a college prank. In conclusion, he stated the
department supported the increased penalties and believed in
calling the action a theft.
Number 0830
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN cited six cars per day in Anchorage were stolen
and wondered if more cars were stolen in winter, for example.
Number 0845
MR. SMITH responded there were 20 cars stolen in one day in
Anchorage due to the key being left in the car, so there appeared
to be more cars stolen in the winter.
0875
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS asked Mr. Smith to explain the profile of a
juvenile and adult offender, and wondered if there were more
juvenile offenders.
Number 0891
MR. SMITH responded there were 604 offenders last year of which 200
were juveniles and 400 were adults in Anchorage. He asserted there
was a fair amount of juvenile offenders in Anchorage based on the
larger population base.
Number 0919
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN described his time spent last year with the
Anchorage Police Department. He said he was appalled at the list
of stolen vehicles. He cited an example where an officer decided
not to pursue a possible stolen vehicle because it was not a felony
offense. He said he was questioned by many police officers when
joy riding would be a felony. He further cited in the Palmer
Valley a first offender received a warning letter due to an
overwhelming case load. He questioned if SSHB 75 was for posture
or real action.
Number 0999
MR. SMITH responded a felony should commensurate with a
consequence. He further stated the message sent to juveniles that
"joy riding" was a felony needed attached consequences, and that
would cost money. He further said he did not have the absolute
answer to Representative Ogan's concerns. A consequence was
needed, he alleged, or it was not a good piece of policy.
Number 1040
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said it appeared from the Health and Social
Service fiscal note there was a good chance of making a difference.
Number 1059
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN asked if there were any statistics from the
rest of the state other than Anchorage.
Number 1070
MR. SMITH said because of the population base in Anchorage it was
the biggest problem. He further said snow machines were a bigger
problem in areas off of the main road system.
Number 1090
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN asked if snow machines were excluded.
Number 1100
MR. SMITH said in SSHB 75 it was not a felony.
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN asked about skiffs and 4-wheelers.
MR. SMITH responded the mentioned vehicles by Representative Ivan
were considered a misdemeanor.
Number 1115
CHAIR JAMES cited a personal experience in 1990 where a family car
was stolen. She also cited a personal example last year where a
snow machine was stolen. She alleged there was a rash of activity
and something needed to be done.
Number 1189
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said if a car was stolen now it was only a
misdemeanor, but if a $500 radio was stolen out of the car it was
a felony. He questioned why there was an exemption for snow
machines as they were worth more than $500.
Number 1217
CHAIR JAMES said she understood a snow machine was a personal
vehicle for some.
Number 1230
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said when SSHB 75 was passed to the House
Judiciary Committee the sponsor and the committee were going to
consider incorporating another bill that addressed juvenile car
theft.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness, Anne Carpeneti, Assistant
Attorney General, Central Office, Criminal Division, Department of
Law.
Number 1275
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Central Office,
Criminal Division, Department of Law, said the Administration
supported SSHB 75. She announced it was long overdue. Ms.
Carpeneti said under SSHB 75 boat theft was a felony based on the
definition of a motor vehicle. She further said a first offense
snow machine theft was a misdemeanor, but a second offense was a
felony. It would be a felony if over $500 worth of damage was done
on the first offense, however. She said she would be happy to
answer any questions.
Number 1335
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if an all terrain vehicle such as a 4-
wheeler was included in the definition of a motor vehicle.
Number 1340
MS. CARPENETI said no. It was included in the snow machine
provision. She read Section 1, page 3, line 1, "`motor vehicle'
means a propelled vehicle that is a passenger car, truck,
motorcycle, watercraft, aircraft, or commercial motor vehicle."
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness, Diane Worley, Director,
Division of Family and Youth Services, Department of Health &
Social Services.
Number 1383
DIANE WORLEY, Director, Division of Family and Youth Services,
Department of Health & Social Services said she was here to answer
any questions.
Number 1402
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked Ms. Worler if SSHB 75 would make a
difference and how would it affect her department.
Number 1420
MS. WORLEY said the juvenile probation offices throughout Alaska
were overburdened. She alleged Representative Robinson's question
depended on the level of their ability to monitor juveniles and was
limited by resources. She asserted the department supported SSHB
75. She stated it increased the level of the crime and took away
the perception of "joy riding" versus the crime of auto theft.
However, the division would need additional probation officers to
make a difference in Anchorage and Palmer.
Number 1502
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said under existing law when a juvenile
stole a car he received a slap on the hand and asked Ms. Worley to
comment.
Number 1532
MS. WORLEY said the perception of the letter sent to juveniles on
the first offense was exaggerated. She alleged the ability to take
a strong action on criminal mischief was limited due to little
leverage.
Number 1590
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON questioned the concept of victim mediation
and asked Ms. Worley to respond.
Number 1625
MS. WORLEY said victim mediation had merit. She alleged it
depended on the level of the crime. She affirmed victim mediation
would be a good alternative to the less severe cases.
Number 1655
CHAIR JAMES recalled her personal experience when the snow machine
was stolen. She said it was a $4,000 snow mobile and when it was
returned it was damaged. The mother of the juvenile cried when the
complaint was filed. The case, however, was lost at DFYS. Chair
James further said if it was her snow machine she would have
approached the mother and juvenile directly to discuss the
consequences. She said there needed to be alternatives to help the
offender.
Number 1740
MS. WORLEY agreed alternative programs were needed that involved
the community and the parents. She cited a personal story where
she stole a pack of gum at the age of five and was made to return
it directly to the store. She said she was mortified and never
stole again. Ms. Worley said juveniles learned from a process.
The division she reiterated supported alternative programs for
first time offenders.
Number 1819
CHAIR JAMES wondered what would have happened if DFYS had not lost
the file.
Number 1850
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said it was refreshing to hear discussion
regarding consequences to juvenile action.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved SSHB 75 move from committee with the
attached fiscal notes, and individual recommendations. Hearing no
objection, it was moved out of the House State Affairs Committee.
HB 368 - ELECTION CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM
HB 317 - ELECTION CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM
Number 2000
The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Committee was HB 368 and HB 317.
CHAIR JAMES said the committee was to look at the individual
sections today. She further said a committee substitute would be
written based on the testimony and discussion in the committee.
Number 2082
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON suggested adding the clause "there is a
perception from the public" instead of "the legislature finds."
CHAIR JAMES said in the last meeting we discussed perception versus
reality.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked when the merit of the legislation
versus the initiative would be discussed. She stated many people
called her office to say they were upset a piece of legislation was
being considered. She said she thought they would be pleased that
the legislature was addressing the issue. She asserted a bill
needed to mirror the existing initiative. She asked if the other
members of the committee also received the same feedback.
Number 2210
CHAIR JAMES said she had a few calls from people distressed about
the bill. She further said it was an obligation to the people to
discuss the issue. She also stated the committee should take heed
to the drafters. She alleged things needed to be defined. She
reiterated it was not the intention to challenge the initiative's
efforts. Chair James asserted it was understandable the people
involved in the initiative would be upset because they obviously
felt the legislature could not deal with it directly. She said she
hoped the committee process would convince the people legislators
were more honorable than believed. She alleged the initiative was
a lawyer's chance and a court's nightmare.
TAPE 96-7, SIDE A
Number 0000
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN started by addressing the
sections.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said Section 2 conformed to a later
section.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said Section 3 read municipalities could
regulate more strictly than state law. He said he was not sure if
they were completely restricted from that right now, however.
Section 3, therefore, was a clarification.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said Section 4 addressed inflation
adjustment. He said HB 368 and the initiative made all amounts
subject to an inflation adjustment, whereas HB 317 tied inflation
adjustment to actual contribution limits only. He alleged the
other minor amounts were silly to adjust and should stay at a round
number. He recommended the approach in HB 317.
Number 0208
CHAIR JAMES said she had an aversion to the consumer price index
and the measurement of inflation. She alleged inflation
measurements created a consumer price index. She suggested a
statute to change the amounts instead of a provision in a bill.
Number 0274
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said in five years the amounts were reviewed
and adjusted according to Section 4. He suggested establishing a
maximum contribution figure instead of adjusting for inflation.
Number 0308
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said Section 4 in HB 317 only turned the
power over to the commission.
Number 0346
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said if Section 4 were deleted an amendment
would be needed to adjust the amount.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said Representative Porter was correct.
Number 0369
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN continued addressing the sections.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said Section 5 was a conforming
amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said Section 6 was a cost saving step.
The section, he asserted, stated candidates that did not raise more
than $1,000 or intend to raise more than $1,000 did not have to
deal with the provisions of this chapter. The reason, he said, was
to help the rural and smaller school board elections, for example.
He alleged there were many elections this section applied to due to
the small communities. He also said the $1,000 figure was not a
magic figure and probably could be slightly higher.
Number 0473
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER called on a witness from the Alaska Public
Offices Commission (APOC).
Number 0488
BROOKE MILES, Regulation of Lobbying, Public Offices Commission,
Department of Administration, said the commission had a
teleconference on HB 368 yesterday, and a written statement was
being prepared.
Number 0520
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if a provision existed to exclude a
candidate who did not intend to spend more than $1,000.
Number 0535
MS. MILES said under current commission policy, it did permit
candidates for municipal offices to file an exemption if they did
not intend to or raise more than $1,000.
Number 0554
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said the law was not clear, and if
someone challenged it they would succeed. Section 6, he stated,
would extend the exemption to state offices as well.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said Section 7 precluded the 50 percent
provision. He said there was confusion when drafting the bill and
it did not reflect the initiative. The bill said if a group
supported or opposed and contributed to one candidate more than 50
percent of its funds, the name of the candidate should be part of
the name of the group. He further suggested adopting the
provisions in HB 317 instead of HB 368. Section 7 also called for
registering before making an expenditure.
Number 0736
CHAIR JAMES said if you had to register before making a
contribution the 50 percent concept was gone.
Number 0751
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said the 50 percent was separate and
only related to the title of the group. According to Mike Frank,
he alleged, there was a mistake when interpreting the intent of the
initiative. He said it was corrected in HB 317.
Number 0833
CHAIR JAMES commented she was concerned about the general public
interpreting the initiative when a bill drafter had problems.
Number 0864
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN continued addressing the sections.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said Section 8 stated only an individual
or a group of individuals could make a contribution to a candidate.
However, non-individuals could not contribute to a candidate. He
stated this was the rule at the federal level. He cited labor
unions and corporation contributions were banned during and prior
to the 1940's.
Number 0967
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated only individuals and political action
groups could make contributions to a candidate, and cited the
political action group was limited to $500, and the individual
$250.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said it was $500 from a group and $500
from an individual.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked how much an individual could make a
contribution to a political action group.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN replied $250.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER responded a political action group could make
a contribution to a candidate of $500. He asked if a political
action group could be a group of employees at a business, for
example.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN replied yes. He further said at the
federal level that was the type of political action groups that
proliferated. He said he did not suspect that would happen at the
state level because the amount limits were the same as for
individuals. He cited at the federal level the contribution limit
was five times higher for groups.
Number 1091
CHAIR JAMES asserted she would get rid of political action groups
altogether. However, she said, she did not want to water down the
initiative.
Number 1114
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said under the first amendment the right
to assemble in the political realm was the right to assemble in a
political group. He stated it was upheld at the federal level.
Number 1155
CHAIR JAMES said a constitutional amendment was being discussed at
the federal level to fix the problem of political action groups.
She reiterated she wished they did not exist. She said Section 8
presumed only individuals could make contributions to political
action groups and candidates, therefore, this eliminated revenue
from charitable gaming activity, for example.
Number 1213
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said the bills did not address
charitable gaming. He said, Mike Frank believed the vast majority
of the charitable gaming money came when a group turned its permit
over to an operator or vender and received the proceeds. He stated
that would be a corporation giving money to a political group which
was not allowed. There was a contrary view, he said, but he did
not know the answer. He announced he believed it would still be
prohibited. He cited legislation from Representative Martin and
Senator Pearce addressing charitable gaming. He further stated,
the legislation allowed activity for a group to interact with the
public in the attempt to solicit funds that clearly demonstrated
where the funds would go.
Number 1294
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if Mr. Frank believed there was an
avenue for gaming proceeds through the political group to reach the
candidate.
Number 1315
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN responded the initiative committee
believed a third party vendor raising money for a political group
was prohibited. He cited that was a corporation and it was not
allowed. He further said there was a contrary view, but he did not
agree with it. In conclusion, he said, there was not a problem
discussing the charitable gaming issue.
Number 1348
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he would like to stay on the same page
as the initiative. He stated he supported strengthening the
language to preclude charitable gaming proceeds if it were the wish
of the committee and the direction of the initiative.
Number 1382
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN replied there was a difference in the
initiative and the bills between someone who raised money on their
own with a permit, such as a raffle, and in the way money was
raised in reality. He suggested clarifying the issue.
Number 1421
CHAIR JAMES said we should clarify the issue by stating only
individuals could give to groups, and that money from groups could
only come from individuals. Therefore, groups could only make
collections and not earn money in any other manner.
Number 1446
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON inquired about auction fund raising for
candidates.
Number 1457
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said a charitable gaming permit was not
required for an auction.
Number 1480
CHAIR JAMES read the following statement into the record from Ken
Waldman, Box 22498, Juneau, Alaska 99802, (907) 463-8753.
"Legislators now writing their own versions of a campaign finance
reform bill, and legislators who support those efforts, just don't
get it.
"1) The work is wasteful duplication. A decent initiative signed
by more than 32,000 Alaskans is already on the ballot this
November. Supposedly busy people, don't legislators realize their
time can better be spent on issues that haven't yet reached the
petition stage? Or do 32,000 Alaskans continually have to sign
petitions to be heard?
"2) The work is cynical. After years of blocking such a measure,
they're rushing forward only because it will be on the ballot.
Being in touch with their constituents--a part of the job, yes?--
would have revealed a large number did indeed approve the measure.
"3) The work is arrogant. The official line is they'll write a
"better" bill. In reality, no writing is perfect; all writing is
flawed, as will their bill be, only in different ways. The real
reason has got to be to take this issue out of voters' hands,
silence our voices.
"4) The work is absurd. Giving the legislators the benefit of the
doubt, I'm reminded of a movie scene where fire fighters arrive to
save a town on fire. Only trouble, everything's cold rubble. The
fire fighters are sincere, but inept. Wanting to help, they're
days late.
"No wonder more than 32,000 Alaskans signed the initiative. No
wonder so many of us are disgusted. No wonder we need reform, and
have needed it for years.
"Keep at them."
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in
Anchorage, Robert Gigler.
Number 1550
ROBERT GIGLER asked if Representative Green was present.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN replied yes.
MR. GIGLER referred to a memorandum from a teleconference meeting.
He said he had a problem with contributions from the national
parties to the state of Alaska. He cited the National Republican
Party made enormous campaign contributions and should not be
allowed. He also asserted the $50 civil penalty should be raised
to $500. He said after the appeal process the $50 went down to
nothing. He also said it was the initiative petition to be on the
ballot in November of 1996. In conclusion he said we need to get
something done. He further said he was filing over 50 complaints
from February 15 - 17, 1996 because no one was filing within the
ten day time frame.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in
Barrow, Frank Smith.
Number 1731
FRANK SMITH said he agreed with virtually everything Representative
Finkelstein said. He further stated he was opposed to the
contribution amount from political groups as it disturbed the
political process. He alleged when a candidate had access to large
sums of money it corrupted the process. He also said he was
concerned the language in the bill exempted municipalities that
chose to do so. He cited the "wet status" election in Barrow where
it was unable to determine exactly where the money came from
because the municipality many years ago chose to exempt itself. He
suggested eliminating the language from the bill.
Number 1790
CHAIR JAMES said the bill stated municipalities could get stronger
and not weaker.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIR JAMES adjourned the House State Affairs meeting at 10:08 a.m.
and moved right into the presentation made by the Administration.
Number 1841
The Administration Presentation on Supplemental Appropriation on
the Federal Shortfall was called to order by Chair Jeannette James
at 10:10 a.m.
CHAIR JAMES called on the first witness, Analee McConnell,
Director, Office of the Director, Office of Management and Budget,
Office of the Governor.
ANALEE MCCONNELL, Director, Office of the Director, Office of
Management and Budget, Office of the Governor, announced she
appreciated the committee members for their time today to receive
an update on the federally funded programs. She stated a bridge
financing bill was proposed in early January due to the uncertainty
in Washington D.C. She also stated John Katz, Special Counsel, was
on-line in Washington D.C. to share his perceptions with the
committee members. She announced there was a great deal of
uncertainty still and the agencies were working minute-by-minute to
update their status. Ms. McConnell said the agencies and the
Administration were walking the line between causing unnecessary
disruption of federally funded services by overreacting, and not
being fiscally responsible by acknowledging what might happen if
the federal funding levels were lowered.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness John Katz, Special Counsel,
Washington D.C. Office, Office of the Governor.
Number 1896
JOHN KATZ, Special Counsel, Washington D.C. Office, Office of the
Governor, announced Martha Stewart was also on-line in Washington
D.C. to help answer questions. He said the situation in Washington
D.C. was characterized by uncertainty. He stated he had never seen
a situation like this before and there were no patterns to
extrapolate with accuracy about what might happen. He further
stated Congress passed a continuing resolution until March 15,
1996. He said Congress would not be working on appropriation
issues between now and late February. The current federal budget
process divided itself, he stated, into categories to include
agencies subject to appropriation bills in the normal course of
business, agencies that received money at the conference committee
level, agencies that received FY95 appropriations at the lesser of
either chamber's level, and agencies funded at 75 percent of the
FY95 level. He further said some agencies were funded based on the
FY95 budget at the 95 percent level until September 30, 1996. In
Alaska the agencies most affected were unemployment insurance and
medicaid. The final complications, he said, were the unresolved
differences between the political parties regarding welfare,
medicaid and medicare reform. In conclusion, he stated, there were
tertiary impacts, as well, for agencies in the Department of the
Interior because Alaska was a public land state.
CHAIR JAMES asked where the veterans fitted in this scenario.
MR. KATZ called on Martha Stewart to respond.
Number 2152
MARTHA STEWART, Special Assistant, Washington D.C. Office, Office
of the Governor, replied some, but not all of the veteran's
benefits were protected until September 30, 1996. She asked which
programs in particular Representative James was concerned about.
CHAIR JAMES said Ms. McConnell mentioned the veterans in an earlier
discussion.
MR. KATZ announced he would get back to the committee members in
response to the particular questions regarding veterans.
CHAIR JAMES said thank you.
Number 2170
MS. MCCONNELL said the department was concerned about the disabled
veterans programs. She said it first appeared the programs would
be funded at the 75 percent level. However, every time the
department was ready with a compilation more information was
received that either would higher or lower the estimation. She
said other states were caught in this uncertainty also. She said,
it was difficult to receive the most up-to-date information from
the federal agencies. However, at this point she felt the
veteran's programs were in good shape. She announced Arbe
Williams, Director, Central Office, Division of Administrative
Services, Department of Labor was here to answer any specific
questions.
Number 2228
CHAIR JAMES said she was willing to bridge finance when the only
thing holding up a decision was an accounts receivable from the
federal government that guaranteed funding. She further said she
was concerned if the funding was authorized by the legislature over
and above the state budget then subsequently cut by the federal
government, she asserted, to make up the difference a cut would be
needed elsewhere. However, she suggested language could be devised
to address this issue.
Number 2284
MS. MCCONNELL responded the language proposed initially was pulled
together quickly with the expectation adjustments would be made.
She wondered what should be done about a program which is funded at
the 75 percent level now, but was expected to be funded at a higher
level, because there was no guarantee of the higher federal
funding. She said she asked Mr. Katz if an agency was being funded
at a 95 percent level was it possible Congress would decide to cut
it back to 80 percent, for example, which would cause adjustments.
She said Mr. Katz felt that was unlikely. She also said the
department was concerned about laying people off in the interim
when it was believed the issue would be resolved. There were other
states that did lay people off during the time of uncertainty and
resumed during the next continuing resolution. She stated that was
not a good situation, however. She further said most issues were
working out as hoped, such as unemployment insurance. She said two
departments were here today to answer questions, the Department of
Health and Social Services, and the Department of Labor. She
asserted in some cases general fund matches would be spent at a
faster rate. She stated this was a reasonable risk. In conclusion
she wondered when to scale services that were being scaled back at
the federal level also. She wondered if the cuts should be made
now or at the end of the continuing resolution period resulting in
more adjustments at the end of the fiscal year.
Number 2440
CHAIR JAMES replied she was concerned about eliminating something
that did not need to be cut to make up for the deficit. She
further enquired about the 95 percent level, and asked if it was
higher at the FY96 than the FY95 budget.
MS. MCCONNELL asked if Chair James was referring to federal funds.
CHAIR JAMES replied yes, or was it left at that level.
MS. MCCONNELL replied no, a higher level was not assumed. Except,
in the area of medicaid. She said Alaska was at a disadvantage in
the medicaid proposals in Congress and the Administration was
working closely with the Alaskan Congressional delegation.
Otherwise a more conservative figure was assumed, she stated.
TAPE 96-7, SIDE B
Number 0000
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN commented there was an unprecedented
draught in the state right now, and unless it snowed, he alleged,
there would be an early and hot fire season. He wondered how this
would be affected as there was a lot of federal funding that went
toward fighting the wild land fires.
Number 0035
MR. KATZ replied he was not sure because wild land fire fighting
had not been singled out for special attention. He said it was
part of the Department of the Interior's budget which was
uncertain. He said it was an issue for the Alaskan Congressional
delegation.
Number 0060
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN responded he would appreciate it if the issue
was addressed. He reiterated his district had no snow and he was
concerned.
Number 0071
MS. MCCONNELL said it was also an issue that would be addressed in
the supplemental budget with respect to disasters. She stated a
bad break-up was anticipated this year due to climate conditions
and more information would be available later this week.
Number 0125
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER wondered if it was easier to maintain the
previous level or anticipate the reduction and administer at the
reduced level.
Number 0134
MS. MCCONNELL said initially it was to maintain the 95 federal
level which was appropriated in the FY95 state budget. However,
the uncertainty was piece-meal. She said it was never the
intention to use this to address larger policy issues such as a
state response to a federal budget reduction from here forward.
Therefore, she stated, larger policy questions needed to be
addressed as well. She hoped it would be dealt with in the FY97
budget as it would be an appropriate time to think it through, and
temporarily kept things going through the end of the state fiscal
year. She cited the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) was the one agency the Administration now anticipates a
federal funding level of 85 percent, therefore, it was time to
start looking at the issues involved.
Number 0198
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER suggested including the different funding
levels in the bill.
Number 0217
CHAIR JAMES said it was important to know who the people were and
what they did to determine how a decision would affect them, and
suggested a scenario was needed.
Number 0229
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER replied part of the scenario was the state
level, the anticipated federal level, and the requested level.
Number 0238
MS. MCCONNELL said this was the first time there was an extended
time period where the funding level was known. She asked the
committee members if it was timely to bring a supplemental bridge
financing bill forward through the committees, or for the
Administration to proceed as it had been.
Number 0287
CHAIR JAMES said the legislature was confused also. She asserted
it was important to not expand the spending already authorized.
She stated the only way to deal with the issue was through
supplemental funding. She reiterated it was a tough decision and
everyone was in a quandary. She alleged agencies funded at the 90
to 95 percent level probably would not get 100 percent funding.
She further alleged for agencies funded at the 75 percent level it
was questionable if it would be cut altogether. She said she would
take the position it would not be funded beyond 75 percent. She
cited her discussion with Arbe Williams which addressed carry-over
funds used in her department. In conclusion, she suggested a piece
of legislation with guidelines was needed in the event this
happened again.
Number 0418
REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON wondered about the status of the bill
introduced.
CHAIR JAMES said a bill had been introduced and was in the House
State Affairs Committee, but it was not before them today because
it needed to be amended. She said the Administration was preparing
a substitute rather than the committee because they had the
information.
Number 0460
MS. MCCONNELL replied she was happy to make the amendments.
However, she said she received information the legislature did not
want to hear the bill.
Number 0479
CHAIR JAMES suggested including parameters in the revised bill.
MS. MCCONNELL said Mr. Katz believed decisions would probably not
be made by March 15, 1996.
CHAIR JAMES replied the bill should not be reactionary but
precedent setting, therefore, more procedural than specific.
Number 0502
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON agreed a quick response was needed. She
questioned if pink slips would be given in the next few weeks.
Number 0525
MS. MCCONNELL replied decisions were being made in programs where
the funding level was below 95 percent. Layoffs would be necessary
for agencies funded at the 85 percent level, for example, for the
rest of the year. However, it was part of the legislative budget
process to discuss reductions for FY97.
Number 0569
CHAIR JAMES said specifics were needed along with parameters and
procedures.
Number 0588
MS. MCCONNELL wondered if the committee members would like to hear
from the departments.
CHAIR JAMES called Janet Clark, Director, Central Office, Division
of Administrative Services, Department of Health and Social
Services.
Number 0616
JANET CLARK, Director, Central Office, Division of Administrative
Services, Department of Health and Social Services, said this issue
was crucial to the department because it received over $400,000,000
in federal funds for various programs. She said the department was
tracking this weekly producing a report. The report, she stated,
was based on a letter of credit received from the federal
government, and if the money was not in the letter of credit it was
included in the report even though the funding had been. She said
she did not want to impact the state's cash position.
Number 0672
CHAIR JAMES responded it was not a problem authorizing funds when
there was a cash receivable. However, when there was not a cash
receivable, a problem existed because of the possibility the it
might be adjusted creating more adjustments elsewhere. She cited
medicaid as an example of uncertainty because of changes in the
law, and wondered if the changes would be retroactive.
Number 0731
MS. CLARK replied the department received quarterly advances for
the medicaid program. She cited the department spent over $5
million per week in medicaid payments and any changes would be a
result of a policy decision. She further stated the department
was in a different position than the Department of Labor, for
example, because it received individual grants that went to people.
Therefore, decisions affecting benefit levels were needed. There
were enough funds to keep the current benefit levels until May 1,
1996. Ms. Clark also said the state could charge the federal
government interest for the days cash was not sent, in some
situations.
Number 0811
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if the department had the authority to
reduce a benefit.
Number 0819
MS. CLARK said the current benefit levels were stated in statutes.
Number 0830
CHAIR JAMES replied there was a different spin on everything and
specifics were needed.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIR JAMES adjourned the Administration presentation at 10:45 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|