Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/08/1996 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
February 8, 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 BILL NO. 433
"An Act relating to an exemption to the unauthorized publication or
use of communications and the prohibition against eavesdropping for
certain law enforcement activities."
- PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HOUSE BILL NO. 22
"An Act relating to long-term plans of certain state agencies and
recommendations regarding elimination of duplication in state
agency functions."
- PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HOUSE BILL NO. 457
"An Act relating to the unlicensed practice of certain occupations
for which licenses are required."
- HEARD AND HELD
* HOUSE BILL NO. 361
"An Act relating to municipal capital project matching grants for
a municipality organized under federal law as an Indian reserve;
and providing for an effective date."
- PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HOUSE BILL NO. 449
"An Act relating to the taxation of income."
- HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 433
SHORT TITLE: POLICE CAN INTERCEPT SOME COMMUNICATIONS
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/19/96 2485 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/19/96 2485 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
01/19/96 2485 (H) 3 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (2-ADM, DCED)
01/19/96 2485 (H) 3 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (CORR, LAW, DPS)
01/19/96 2485 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
02/06/96 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/06/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/08/96 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 22
SHORT TITLE: STATE LONG-TERM PLANNING
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) PARNELL, Hanley, Therriault, Green,
Bunde, Navarre, Toohey, B.Davis, Porter
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/06/95 26 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/16/95 26 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/95 26 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE
02/08/96 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 457
SHORT TITLE: FINES: UNLICENSED PRACTICE OF OCCUPATION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) JAMES
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/30/96 2569 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/30/96 2570 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY
02/06/96 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/06/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/08/96 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 457
SHORT TITLE: FINES: UNLICENSED PRACTICE OF OCCUPATION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) JAMES
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/30/96 2569 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/30/96 2570 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY
02/06/96 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/06/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/08/96 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 361
SHORT TITLE: CAP PROJ MATCHING GRANT FOR INDIAN RESERV
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MACKIE
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
12/29/95 2360 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/08/96 2360 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/08/96 2360 (H) CRA, STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE
01/18/96 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
01/18/96 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
01/19/96 2482 (H) CRA RPT 6DP 1NR
01/19/96 2482 (H) DP: MACKIE, ELTON, AUSTERMAN, KOTT
01/19/96 2482 (H) DP: NICHOLIA, IVAN
01/19/96 2482 (H) NR: VEZEY
01/19/96 2482 (H) 2 ZERO FNS (ADM, DCRA)
01/19/96 2482 (H) REFERRED TO STATE AFFAIRS
02/08/96 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 449
SHORT TITLE: INCOME TAX ON INDIVIDUALS & FIDUCIARIES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MOSES, Finkelstein, Brown
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/24/96 2524 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/24/96 2524 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, LABOR & COMMERCE,
FINANCE
01/31/96 2587 (H) COSPONSOR(S): BROWN
02/08/96 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
DENNIS CASANOVAS, Lieutenant
Criminal Investigations Unit
Division of Alaska State Troopers
Department of Public Safety
5700 East Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99507-1225
Telephone: (907) 269-5757
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HB 433.
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 433.
REPRESENTATIVE SEAN PARNELL
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 515
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-2995
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 22.
WALT WILCOX, Committee Aide
House State Affairs Committee
State Capitol, Room 102
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-3743
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor statement for HB 457.
CATHERINE REARDON, Director
Central Office
Division of Occupational Licensing
Department of Commerce and Economic Development
P.O. Box 110506
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0806
Telephone: (907) 465-2534
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HB 457.
MARK JOHNSON, President
Center for Employment Education
1049 E. Whitney Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 279-8451
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HB 457.
RANDY WELKER, Legislative Auditor
Legislative Audit Division
Legislative Agencies and Offices
P.O. Box 113300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-3300
Telephone: (907) 465-3830
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 457.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MACKIE
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 404
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-4925
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 361.
REPRESENTATIVE CARL MOSES
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 204
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-4451
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 449.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-10, 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, Ogan, Ivan and Willis. Members absent
were Representatives Green, Porter and Robinson.
HB 433 - POLICE CAN INTERCEPT SOME COMMUNICATIONS
The first order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Committee was HB 433.
CHAIR JAMES called on the first witness via teleconference in
Fairbanks, Dennis Casanovas, Department of Public Safety.
Number 0222
DENNIS CASANOVAS, Lieutenant, Criminal Investigations Unit, Central
Office, Division of Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public
Safety, said the department supported HB 433 and the exemptions as
amended to AS 42.20.320. He said it would grant law enforcement
officers additional resources to deal with crisis situations, such
as barricaded suspects, and hostages. He stated, currently, law
enforcement officers responded to crisis situations without a clear
understanding of the number of participants, the identity of the
perpetrators, the types of weapons, and the number of hostages.
These situations, he asserted, required rapidly changing
circumstances and law enforcement negotiators relied heavily on
what information was learned from witnesses and suspects.
Therefore, HB 433 would allow law enforcement officers the ability
to intercept communications between a hostage and a suspect. He
also asserted communications would allow law enforcement officers
to know in advance if a suspect planned to increase an act of
violence, for example. The communication would also help identify
whether the negotiator was effective in his or her efforts and
change tactics accordingly to resolve situations more safely and
without further injury to the suspect, hostage, and general public
and law enforcement officers. He cited the Alaska State Troopers
responded to approximately four incidents per year when a suspect
refused to exit or surrendered creating a threatening situation.
In conclusion, he stated, HB 433 would give Alaska law enforcement
officers the equipment to resolve crisis situation in a more
efficient and safe manner.
Number 0366
CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES thanked Mr. Casanovas for his testimony and
asked if the committee members had any questions.
Number 0375
REPRESENTATIVE ED WILLIS asked how many other states used this
method.
Number 0395
MR. CASANOVAS responded he did not know.
Number 0415
CHAIR JAMES said she discussed HB 433 with the Department of Public
Safety, and was convinced this was a tool they needed in hostage
situations. She also discussed it with Representative Brian
Porter, Chair, House Judiciary Committee, who said he was very
interested in this bill. She asserted she wanted to move HB 433 to
the next committee of referral - the Judiciary Committee - to
review the legalities involved, and called for a motion.
Number 0457
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN moved that HB 433 move from the committee.
CHAIR JAMES replied the bill had been moved with individual
recommendations and a zero fiscal note.
Number 0471
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN commented this bill was moving fast and
would like to add a few comments to the record.
Number 0480
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN withdrew his motion.
Number 0490
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he wanted to hear from somebody in the
Attorney's General office to determine if HB 433 exceeded the right
to privacy granted in the Alaska State Constitution. He said he
understood the intent of HB 433. He further stated the Alaska
State Constitution and the United States Constitution both included
privacy clauses, and he wanted to be sure the bill did not exceed
the constitutional authority.
CHAIR JAMES replied Anne Carpeneti from the Department of Law was
here today to respond. She said she did not think that kind of
testimony was necessary because the next committee of referral -
the House Judiciary Committee - would address those concerns.
Number 0545
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Central Office,
Criminal Division, Department of Law, responded she did not hear
the question.
CHAIR JAMES commented HB 433 allowed the police to intercept the
communications in hostage situations and violate their prohibition
for eavesdropping. She said Representative Ogan was concerned it
violated privacy granted in the constitution.
MS. CARPENETI responded HB 433 was not a violation of the right of
privacy. She said these were exceptions to the eavesdropping rule,
and exceptions were allowed under the law in certain circumstances,
such as emergencies. In her judgement, she said, these situations
would be emergencies justifying the taping of words.
Number 0614
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN wondered if there had been court tests in other
states on this type of law.
Number 0620
MS. CARPENETI said she was not aware of any court cases in other
states, but was sure a test had been done. She said she would look
into it and would be happy to forward that information to him.
Number 0630
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Ms. Carpeneti if other states had this
type of a statute?
MS. CARPENETI replied, yes, other states had this type of a
statute. She said she would be happy to provide copies of those
statutes. Alaska was not the only state, and HB 433 was similar to
a federal statute.
Number 0655
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved that HB 433 move from the committee with
individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. Hearing no
objection, HB 433 was so moved from the House State Affairs
Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said Representative Ogan's points were well
made, and as a member of the House Judiciary Committee he would
address those issues.
CHAIR JAMES suggested to Representative Ogan he participate when
the House Judiciary Committee addressed HB 433 and ask the same
questions.
HB 22 - STATE LONG-TERM PLANNING
The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Committee was HB 22.
Number 0710
CHAIR JAMES called on Representative Sean Parnell, sponsor of HB
22.
REPRESENTATIVE SEAN PARNELL said this was deja vous for three out
of the four member of the House State Affairs Committee because the
same bill passed the legislature two years ago. He said long-range
planning had taken on a special meaning in the past few years to
include closing the fiscal gap based on the charges of the long-
range fiscal planning commission. He said HB 22 did not
necessarily close the fiscal gap, but rather addressed the
accountability and performance of government for expenditures. He
noted that one of the recommendations of the long-range fiscal
planning commission, was to start performance based budgeting. He
further said there was no rational or objective way for the
legislature or the Governor to make budget choices and establish
priorities; there was a lack of accountability for funds spent;
there was a basic distrust of government; and lastly there was a
focus on programs rather than serving the public. He further said
HB 347 passed with wide bi-partisan support last session in both
the House of Representatives and the Senate. However, it was
vetoed by Governor Hickel. The reason it was vetoed, he said, was
because the Commissioners thought the legislature should not be
telling the Governor to long-range plan, creating a turf battle.
He said the legislative and the executive branch should work
together regarding long-range planning. Representative Parnell
said HB 22 tried to implement performance measures as part of the
budget process. He further stated the departments were notorious
for using irrelevant performance measurements. He said a
department would testify it had fewer state troopers than last
year, for example, which was not relevant to the financial
discussion. The citizens, he alleged, cared about the services,
for example, the safety of the Seward Highway, and not the number
of state troopers. Therefore, HB 22 established the framework for
long-range strategic planning. He further said goals and objective
performance measures would be established by each department with
public input, and the budget submitted to the legislature would
include those performance measures. The process he said was known
as performance based budgeting and had been implemented at the
federal, city and state government level. He said Hawaii,
Connecticut, Iowa, Louisiana, North Carolina, Oregon and Texas used
performance based budgeting. He further said Texas was chosen as
the model because it was experiencing financial strains and had a
natural resource base similar to Alaska. House Bill 22 would
follow a five point time line. He said at the beginning of the
term the Governor would develop statewide goals to be issued on May
1 when the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) would provide
economic and population forecasts to the departments. By July 1
OMB would approve each agencies' goals and by October 1 each agency
would submit its long-term plan to OMB. He said the dates
corresponded to the submission of the budget to OMB. He further
said the plans would cover a six year period and would be used by
the Governor, the agency and the legislature to develop the
following year's budget. The bill provided a phase-in period where
three departments would be chosen by OMB for the first year of
implementation. He said this was a result of a compromise on HB
347 (a bill from the 18th Alaska State Legislature) as the
departments felt they needed more time to prepare. He alleged it
would make budget review jobs easier for the legislators. He noted
the legislature in Oregon experienced a decrease in the amount of
sub-committees needed. In conclusion, he said unless long-range
planning was tied to the budget it would not be a useful document.
He said it was not the all-to-end-all, but rather a tool to make
government more accountable to its expenditures. It was not meant
to be an additional job for the department, but rather supplants
what they were already doing for the budget. He lastly said
performance based budgeting was a step towards making the
government work for the people.
Number 1185
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if performance based budgeting
incorporated zero based budgeting.
Number 1234
REPRESENTATIVE PARNELL replied the correlation between performance
based budgeting and zero based budgeting was that performance based
budgeting established priorities. Therefore, you would start at
zero and fund the priorities.
Number 1245
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commented on the zero fiscal note from OMB.
He wondered if HB 22 would require additional work from the
departments to warrant a positive fiscal note.
Number 1285
REPRESENTATIVE PARNELL said it was what the departments should be
doing anyway. The departments gave a zero fiscal note for HB 22
because they realized it was merely a shift of focus on something
they should be doing.
Number 1308
CHAIR JAMES said she was excited about this type of approach. She
further said it was frustrating to plan because of the short time
spent in the legislature. She asserted a cooperative effort was
needed for success between the Administration and the legislature,
and HB 22 tied them together. She further said it was difficult to
cut the budget without taking away programs, and the procedure in
HB 22 would allow the legislators to see what should be done. She
also said it was a move in the right direction to return the
public's confidence in state government.
Number 1390
REPRESENTATIVE PARNELL referred the committee members to page 2 of
the handout titled "General Appropriations Act, 1993 State of
Texas, Excerpt from Texas Department of Public Safety." The
example illustrated the goal, objective, outcome, strategy and
measurement from the Department of Public Safety. He alleged the
Alaska budget was not as understandable or readable.
Number 1485
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said as a freshman legislator he would welcome
the change. He said the budget currently reflected the number of
positions and did not describe the nature of the job.
Number 1502
CHAIR JAMES replied the number of positions were even a
disillusionment because not all of the positions were filled.
Number 1515
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commented the current budget process was
department friendly but not user friendly. He further said HB 22
would create stability because it committed the departments.
Number 1538
REPRESENTATIVE PARNELL said an amendment was needed to HB 22 to
change the dates accordingly.
Number 1562
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved that page 3, line 25 and 26, change the
dates from "1996" to "1997." Hearing no objection, it was so
moved.
CHAIR JAMES asked if there was any further testimony. No one
responded so she called on a motion.
Number 1589
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved that HB 22 as amended move from the
committee with individual recommendations and a zero fiscal note.
Hearing no objection, HB 22 was moved from the House State Affairs
Committee.
HB 457 - FINES: UNLICENSED PRACTICE OF OCCUPATION
The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Committee was HB 457.
CHAIR JAMES called on Walter Wilcox to read the sponsor statement
for HB 457 into the record.
Number 1680
WALT WILCOX, Committee Aide, House State Affairs Committee read the
following statement into the record.
"This legislation was requested by LB&A as part of the sunset
audits on various boards.
"Current law allows enforcement of practicing certain occupations
without a license only through the courts. This Bill allows the
Department to impose a civil penalty if a person practices or
offers to practice an occupation in this State that is regulated
under Title Sec.08.01.
"The civil penalty may not exceed $5,000.00 for each offense. The
Bill also provides for enforcement mechanisms."
MR. WILCOX invited Catherine Reardon, Department of Commerce and
Economic Development, to explain the department's position.
Number 1731
CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Central Office, Division of
Occupational Licensing, Department of Commerce and Economic
Development, thanked Representative James for introducing the bill,
and further stated the department supported HB 457. The bill, she
said, would give the division another tool to bring individuals
into compliance with the occupational licensing laws. She stated
it would be helpful for occupations such as opticians, and
commented it was the optician sunset audit that suggested such a
bill. She said the department would first try to bring the
individuals into voluntary compliance through a letter noting the
potential financial fine. The bill she said gave the division up-
to $5,000, but, she asserted, the division would not be fining
individuals $5,000 for relatively minor violations. She reiterated
that was an "up-to" figure. She referred the committee members to
page 1, line 11, "The department shall set the amount of the
penalty after taking into account appropriate factors, including
the seriousness of the violation, the economic benefit resulting
from the violation, the history of violations..." The bill she
said directed the division to act reasonably depending on the
action. However, if someone continued to practice without a
license then the department could ratchet-up the fines. She
further said the department operated under the Administrative
Procedures Act (APA) which required a hearing before a fine was
issued. She said the bill did not allow capricious fines. Ms.
Reardon said it was frustrating for small business owners to see
the competition not pay for a license. She alleged HB 457 would
alleviate the court system with citations of unlicensed activity.
Number 1870
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN mentioned a conversation between himself and
Ms. Reardon regarding another bill where the cost was born by the
litigants. He said that bill would net zero but a positive fiscal
note would need to be shown. He questioned why HB 457 indicated a
zero fiscal note.
Number 1898
MS. REARDON said she recalled the conversation. She said if money
needed to be collected, for example it would need to be reflected
in the fiscal note. However, HB 457 did not require additional
money. She said she would use her licensing examiners and
Attorneys General for the hearings. She stated the department
might see a revenue, but she did not include the estimate in the
fiscal note because she simply was not sure how much would be
generated. Ms. Reardon did not want to guarantee a certain amount
in fines in the event she did not reach it. She reiterated she did
not have any new expenditures. She referred to the other bill
Representative Green mentioned and stated per diem and travel was
needed in addition. She said she was not trying to be
inconsistent.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN cited she would issue fines.
MS. REARDON replied she would send a letter indicating a fine, but
she would not pay anyone new to do that task.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he did not see the difference.
Number 1994
CHAIR JAMES said she understood Ms. Reardon. A fiscal note
indicated money that was not authorized. Ms. Reardon said she was
not going to spend any money that was not already authorized and
use the existing parameters. For example, the bill might require
more stamps, but Ms. Reardon already had a budget for stamps and
the bill would not increase her budget for stamps.
Number 2025
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he agreed if it was true. He alleged it
was not the same because the fiscal note suggested she would not
spend anything and he asserted there were more steps required that
would cost money.
Number 2035
MS. REARDON replied, yes, the activities would require staff time,
but she was going to cutoff other activities to provide the
required time. She cited her staff would cutback time expended
trying to prove criminal intent and instead prepare for the
hearing. She said she would talk to Representative Green regarding
the other fiscal note.
Number 2065
CHAIR JAMES said a positive fiscal note sometimes showed money
saved and closed the gap. She also said sometimes a positive
fiscal note was issued to off-set an expense in which case the
legislature was authorizing the money to be spent. In this case,
there might be some revenue generated of which would go to the
general fund.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asserted it should be shown as a fiscal note.
CHAIR JAMES said Ms. Reardon did not have a clue how much revenue
would be generated in fines.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if she had a clue regarding the other
issue also. He said he did not want to belabor it here.
CHAIR JAMES replied she was happy with the attached fiscal note,
and the other bill needed to be discussed outside of the meeting.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN agreed it should be discussed elsewhere, but
asserted there was a direct correlation.
Number 2115
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN wondered if boards had quasi-judicial power to
impose fines for practicing without a license.
MS. REARDON replied boards had the authority to fine incompetent
activity which was already licensed activity. However, the Board
of Registration for Architects, Engineers and Land Surveyors had
the authority to fine up-to $5,000 for unlicensed activity.
Number 2147
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said this was a policy shift giving the
Department of Commerce and Economic Development more quasi-judicial
powers through the ability to judge, for example.
Number 2168
MS. REARDON responded it was not a new function for the department.
She said in the division there were 20 licensing boards and 14
programs that ran without boards. Therefore, the department had
the final authority to sign-off on recommendations. It was not a
new procedure but rather a new range of offenses that could trigger
the procedure.
Number 2208
CHAIR JAMES said the public complained about unlicensed activity
and did not feel they had an avenue to fix the problem. She cited
business licenses were a problem. There was a requirement to
obtain a business license and many people operate without one.
This bill, however, did not include business licenses - only
occupational licenses.
Number 2252
MS. REARDON said the intent of the bill was to only include
occupational licenses, but there was the possibility of reading the
bill to include business licenses as well.
Number 2266
MR. WILCOX asked Ms. Reardon to read the list of the current
occupations impacted by HB 457.
Number 2280
MS. REARDON said HB 457 referred to AS 08.01 as the centralized
licensing statute. It included all the programs the division
administered and no others. It did not include drivers licensing,
for example. There were 34 program areas.
MR. WILCOX asked her to list the program areas to clarify the
business licensing issue.
CHAIR JAMES said it was a good thing to put on the record.
Number 2315
MS. REARDON read into the record AS 08.01.010 which listed the
following occupations the statute applied to.
Board of Public Accountancy; State Board of Registration for
Architects, Engineers and Land Surveyors; Athletic Commission -
boxers and wrestlers; Board of Barbers and Hairdressers; Big Game
Commercial Services Board - now a division function; Board of
Certified Real Estate Appraisers; Board of Chiropractic Examiners;
Board of Clinical Social Work Examiners; Board of Dental Examiners;
Board of Dispensing Opticians; Board of Marine Pilots; Board of
Marital and Family Therapy; State Medical Board; Board of Nursing;
Board of Examiners in Optometry; Board of Pharmacy; State Physical
Therapy and Occupational Therapy Board; Board of Psychologist and
Psychological Associate Examiners; Real Estate Commission; Board of
Veterinary Examiners; regulation of acupuncturists under AS 08.06;
regulation of audiologists under AS 08.11; regulation of business
licenses under AS 43.70; regulation of collection agencies under AS
08.24; regulation of concert promoters under AS 08.92; regulation
of construction contractors under AS 08.18; regulation of
electrical mechanical administrators under AS 08.40; regulation of
professional geologists under AS 08.02.011; regulation of hearing
aid dealers under AS 08.55; regulation of morticians under AS
08.42; regulation of the practice of naturopathy under AS 08.45;
and regulation of nursing home administrators under AS 08.70.
She stated the mention of the regulation of business licenses under
AS 08.01 was for administrative reasons such as the collection of
fees. She asked the committee members if the bill should apply to
business licensing also.
Number 2433
CHAIR JAMES replied as sponsor of HB 457 it was not the intent to
include business licensing. She said it was drafted after the
request of the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee's
recommendations. She further said an occupational license was the
business license.
Number 2464
MS. REARDON responded every business was required to have a
business license and some also were required to have an occupation
license. She cited for an example, a doctor had to have a medical
occupation license and a business license if running a private
business.
Number 2476
CHAIR JAMES said she was interested in a separate bill to address
the business license enforcement. She stated it was important to
meet the needs of the state to enforce everyone to obtain a
business license. She also said it was not her intention to
include that in HB 457 and it needed to be addressed in a separate
bill because it had an entirely different constituency. She also
said the House Judiciary Committee, the next committee of referral,
would look at the bill to determine if additional language was
needed to address the business licensing issue.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in
Anchorage, Mark Johnson.
Number 0053
MARK JOHNSON, President, Center for Employment Education, said he
supported HB 457. He suggested expanding the bill to cover other
areas as well. He cited in 1994 his company established the first
truck driving training school in Alaska. His company was certified
nationally and in August of 1995 the doors opened under the
applicable exemptions in the laws. He said it took several months
to meet the requirements for the post secondary education and the
division of motor vehicle divisions. After one year, he said, the
center operated at a considerable loss. He cited the center spent
$470,000 to certify the program and make it operational. He stated
he understood it was not uncommon for business to lose money in the
first years. He further said upon review the center started
looking at the competition when it was discovered many of the other
businesses were not licensed properly under the laws. A formal
complaint was issued to the director of public safety and to the
Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education (ACPE). The response
was the training was insignificant therefore it did not fall under
the rules of the postsecondary education commission. He said the
problem was two-fold as the other companies were training drivers
and renting trucks for the CDL test, while the statutes required
the renter was licensed to operate the equipment.
Number 0286
CHAIR JAMES wondered if the students that attended the Center for
Employment Education received Alaska state student loans.
MR. JOHNSON replied, yes.
CHAIR JAMES asked if the other schools had students attending that
received the Alaska state student loan.
MR. JOHNSON replied, no, because they did not have authorized
approved programs. He cited the responses from his enquiry. A
response from Fairbanks said during the check-in procedure a
routine check was done to determine if the person renting the
equipment was licensed. At times the check-in required an
equipment familiarization process but alleged it was not a training
course. He also cited a letter from Soldotna which stated the
company rented vehicles for individuals to take their CDL test.
The letter also asked him to mind his own business so he could do
his job. Mr. Johnson further said the center was most concerned
about an individual in Anchorage that registered over 700 tests for
the CDL at the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). He alleged the
individual charged $250 per rental which equated to a great deal of
money for an unlicensed activity.
CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Johnson to wrap-up his testimony. She
further said his concerns were valid and needed to be addressed,
however, they did not fit into HB 457.
MR. JOHNSON said, in conclusion, there was a serious problem with
respect to drivers training in Alaska. The current regulations
were not working.
Number 0495
CHAIR JAMES said she appreciated his concerns. She said HB 457
went next to the House Judiciary Committee. She reiterated the
bill did not cover the issues he shared with the committee members,
and suggested special legislation as it affected public safety.
Number 0530
MR. WILCOX suggested in section (b) to add a line to explain the
section did not apply to business licensing.
Number 0542
CHAIR JAMES suggested a conceptual amendment.
Number 0549
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN moved to adopt a conceptual amendment.
Number 0557
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he did not understand the amendment and
asked for clarification.
Number 0560
CHAIR JAMES replied, the list of regulations and boards Ms. Reardon
read earlier could be misconstrued to include the general business
license that was bought for $50. The bill was not intended to
cover that provision. Therefore, to make it perfectly clear a line
should be drafted and included in HB 457.
Number 0591
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN wondered if it was referenced to in the
statute.
CHAIR JAMES replied, "no," and asked Ms. Reardon to respond.
Number 0598
MS. REARDON said HB 457 put the provision in Title 8 which included
the list of boards and regulations she read earlier. She said a
sentence to clarify this issue to eliminate the possibility a
business license would be included because statutes were referred
to each other in the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he understood.
CHAIR JAMES said hearing no objection to the motion to accept the
conceptual amendment, it was so moved.
Number 0640
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN enquired about the $5,000 offense penalty.
Number 0645
MS. REARDON replied it was from the Board of Registration for
Architects, Engineers and Land Surveyors, the board that already
had the authority to fine unlicensed activity. She said it was
also based on the recommendation of the Legislative Budget and
Audit Committee's suggestion for all the boards and regulations to
have the same authority.
Number 0663
CHAIR JAMES replied some of the issues were health related.
Therefore, a deterrent was needed as the issues were large enough.
She further commented a procedure outline was needed to establish
the amount of the fine.
Number 0683
MS. REARDON responded it was a good idea. She further said the
hearing officer usually determined the amount of the fine after
listening to the evidence. She alleged the upper amount was seldom
delivered, and maybe regulations would clarify the issue.
Number 0703
CHAIR JAMES said regulations would clarify, and furthermore,
regulations went through a public process to include the input of
the public. She further said she was not sure if regulation
enforcement should be included in the bill and wondered if it was
presumed.
Number 0731
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said when he served on the Big Game Commercial
Services he cited there was a $5,000 criminal offense penalty. He
said $5,000 was too high for a civil penalty under this scenario.
He also said he questioned the due process of an administrative
hearing. He cited a driving ticket example, whereby a ticket was
issued and went to court following due process. He again stated
$5,000 was a severe fine.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN moved that on page 1, line 10, change the
amount of "$5,000" to "$500."
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS asked if the fines would be greater under the
existing laws based on Representative Ogan's motion.
Number 0800
MS. REARDON responded in court an upper limit of $5,000 was issued
under a misdemeanor generally. She further stated some of the
licenses cost $700 every two years. Therefore, she was concerned
about individuals profiting by failing to obtain a license. She
suggested a higher offense might serve as a deterrent.
Number 0839
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said if the limit of $5,000 was for a criminal
penalty in court, it should not be the same for a civil penalty.
He agreed the limit should be expensive and was willing to
negotiate on the amount.
Number 0874
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said the committee members were hung-up on an
automatic $5,000 fine rather than an "up-to" $5,000 fine. He
further said the circumstances would predicate the amount of the
fine. Representative Green said there was a presumption of
incompetence if a person failed to obtain a license and there
should be a worthwhile potential penalty.
Number 0942
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via telephone, Randy Welker.
Number 0950
CHAIR JAMES explained to Mr. Welker the amendment made to HB 457 to
not include business licenses. She asked Mr. Welker his opinion
regarding the change of the penalty from $5,000 to $500.
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said he was comfortable with the maximum $5,000
limit. He cited there were provisions in the bill to let the
department set the fines accordingly.
Number 1007
RANDY WELKER, Legislative Auditor, Legislative Audit Division,
Legislative Agencies and Offices, said the nature of the potential
violations were important to consider. He cited a physician
running a medical office without the proper license needed to be
stopped immediately using a $5,000 penalty. He alleged it was a
tool used to stop the behavior immediately instead of pursuing a
criminal procedure which took time.
Number 1085
CHAIR JAMES reiterated her suggestion of establishing a regulation
to schedule the fees.
Number 1107
MR. WELKER said it was reasonable to expect the department would
adopt regulations to guide the boards and the hearing officers.
Number 1122
CHAIR JAMES said the regulations would be more representative of
the applicability of each case because it would include the general
public.
Number 1136
MR. WELKER replied he agreed with Chair James as long as the
legislation language was flexible regarding the up-to limit.
Number 1145
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he was concerned about the agency acting
like a judge. He said the legislation was allowing the agency to
act in the same manner as if it were a criminal offense.
Representative Ogan said a $5,000 limit was appropriate for a
criminal offense, and reiterated his philosophical difference
regarding the due process and the lack of the separation of powers.
He asked Mr. Welker, if an administrative solution was not
possible, was the next step a criminal trial.
Number 1212
MR. WELKER replied that was a possibility, and the concern was the
issue of time and deterrence until a criminal proceeding took
place.
Number 1241
CHAIR JAMES referred Representative Ogan to page 2, line 8, "A
person aggrieved by the imposing of a civil penalty under this
section may file an appeal with the superior court for judicial
review of the penalty under AS 44.62.560." She further commented
the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) outlined the exact appeal
process which included due process. She said there was the
opportunity for a hearing to present a case along with an appeal.
Number 1295
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said it took time because of the due process
involved. He said it should be a stop gap to a court proceeding.
He amended his previous amendment from "$500" to "$2,500." He said
it was half-way between nothing and the maximum for a criminal
violation.
Number 1350
CHAIR JAMES asked if there were any objections to Representative
Ogan's amendment.
Number 1360
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN replied he was concerned about adding a
variety of "up-to" limits. He said one "up-to" was enough and let
the department decide the offense. He suggested the limit stay at
$5,000.
Number 1402
CHAIR JAMES responded she did not want to arbitrarily change the
amount otherwise the committee members should look at each board
and regulation and decide what amount was appropriate. She
suggested leaving it at $5,000 - the suggestion of the auditor.
Number 1438
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN replied the auditor did not set the policy in
this state, the legislature did.
Number 1481
CHAIR JAMES reiterated the motion to change page 1, line 10 from
"$5,000" to "$2,500." There was an objection, so a roll call vote
was taken. Representatives James, Green, Ivan and Willis voted
against the amendment. Representative Ogan voted in favor of the
amendment. So, the amendment failed.
CHAIR JAMES commented again regarding the parameters of the
penalties imposed, and wondered if it should be included in the
bill.
Number 1510
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said it was not necessary, but if it added
clarity it was worthwhile.
Number 1525
CHAIR JAMES suggested a committee substitute to be discussed at the
next committee meeting.
HB 361 - CAP PROJ MATCHING GRANT FOR INDIAN RESERV
The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Committee was HB 361.
Number 1584
CHAIR JAMES called on Representative Jerry Mackie, sponsor of HB
361.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MACKIE read the following statement into the
record.
"I introduced this legislation at the request of the Metlakatla
Indian Community when their FY 96 Municipal Assistance Matching
Grant Program appropriation was eliminated from last year's budget.
Metlakatla qualified for this program under the Department of
Administration regulations definition for "municipality." However,
legal analysis found that the statute definition was not written
specific enough to include the Metlakatla Indian Community in this
program. Since the statute definition supersedes the regulatory
definition the appropriation was eliminated.
"HB 361 AMENDS AS 37.06 (Capital Project Matching Grants Programs)
by adding a new section that includes a municipality organized
under federal law as an Indian reserve. This bill has been drafted
to specifically include the Metlakatla Indian Community within the
Municipal Assistance Matching Grant Program. This legislation also
provides that Metlakatla may not receive a grant under the
Unincorporated Community Capital Project Matching Grant Program.
"The community of Metlakatla is definitely more reflective of a
municipal government and fits more appropriately into the Municipal
Capital Matching Grant Program. The community has a mayor, city
council, school board, constitution, law and order codes, policy
department, court system, etc..
"There are two zero fiscal notes accompanying this legislation from
the Department of Community and Regional Affairs and the Department
of Administration."
REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE mentioned to the committee members a section
analysis, a letter from the indian community, a legal analysis and
a statute were included in the package of information. He said HB
361 clarified the intent that the Metlakatla community qualified
for the capital matching grant program. The qualification issue
was raised by Senator Rick Halford last year because of the
community title. He said the Metlakatla community was a federal
indian reservation, but voted in state elections, which qualified
the community for municipal assistance. Therefore, HB 361
clarified the statute the Metlakatla community qualified for the
money. He further said it was discovered the Metlakatla Indian
Community qualified for both an unorganized grant and municipal
assistance. Therefore, HB 361 took away the unorganized portion of
the grant. He also said in response to discussion regarding
sovereignty, the bill did not affect that issue. He referred the
committee members to page 1, line 6, "Municipalities organized
under federal law," which stated an indian reserve qualified only
if it existed as a municipality before enactment of 43 U.S.C.
1618(a). He said Metlakatla was the only one in the state affected
and a definition was needed. The definition used in HB 361 was
consistently used in other statutes dealing with municipal
assistance and revenue sharing.
CHAIR JAMES recognized Kim Helmer, Department of Community and
Regional Affairs, in the audience to answer any questions.
Number 1870
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN mentioned HB 361 would only apply to the
Metlakatla Indian Reservation, and wondered if there were four
different reservations in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE replied as defined in HB 361, Metlakatla was
the only indian reservation in the state of Alaska. He said there
were four areas of the state that had indian trust land and was not
effected by HB 361. House Bill 361 only dealt with the capital
matching grant program and only included communities organized
under federal law. He said he was trying to expedite the bill so
the Metlakatla community would be treated fairly in the budget
process this year.
Number 1888
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said Representative Mackie briefed him on HB
361 yesterday. He further said there were sovereignty issues that
had yet to be resolved in the state, and commented the intent of HB
361 was to not include sovereign communities.
REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE replied the bill required the indian reserve
to be a municipality and organized under federal law which existed
before enactment of 43 U.S.C. 1618(a). The Metlakatla community
was the only one that existed before the enactment of 43 U.S.C.
1618(a) and only dealt with it in reference to the capital matching
grant program. The reason it was stated specifically was because
of a discrepancy due to an oversite.
Number 2073
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS moved that HB 361 move from the committee
with individual recommendations and zero fiscal notes. Hearing no
objection, HB 361 was moved from the House State Affairs Committee.
HB 449 - INCOME TAX ON INDIVIDUALS & FIDUCIARIES
The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Committee was HB 449.
Number 2144
CHAIR JAMES called on Representative Carl Moses, sponsor of HB 449.
REPRESENTATIVE CARL MOSES read the following sponsor statement into
record.
"Thank you Madame Chair for hearing house bill 449, a bill that
would establish a state personal income tax.
"With all the talk these days about the state's fiscal gap,
estimated to be roughly half a billion dollars alone, it's time to
start the debate on raising new revenues to help address the
shortfall.
"That's why I introduced house bill 449."
"A personal income tax was generally considered the fairest tax,
and, because federal law allows deducting state income taxes from
the federal income tax, it should not create an unreasonable burde
on Alaska taxpayers.
"A personal income tax would transfer money to the state that would
otherwise go to the feds, and it would return to the state some of
the money nonresidents earn in Alaska.
"In 1994 alone, over 77,000 nonresidents earned approximately $866
million in the state."
REPRESENTATIVE MOSES commented most of the nonresidents did not
even buy a tube of toothpaste, for example, unless they absolutely
had to. He also said with the tobacco tax bill floating around,
the nonresidents would probably bring their own cigarettes to save
money. He continued to read the sponsor statement into the record.
"It's time some of that money was returned to the state.
"Based on Alaska's personal income tax in place from 1949 to 1961,
house bill 449 would levy a flat tax on all residents and
nonresidents earning income in Alaska based on a percentage of what
they pay the federal government.
"Starting in 1997, the tax would be five percent of a taxpayer's
federal income tax liability if that is not more than $20,000, and
10 percent if the taxpayer's federal income tax liability is over
$20,000.
"Under my proposal, the tax rate would go up five percent in 1998,
and would level off in 1999 after another five percent increase.
"Taxing a flat percentage rate of the federal tax liability is not
new to Alaska.
"Such taxes were in effect at varying rates, between 10 percent and
16 percent, from 1949 to 1963, and again in 1965.
"How much revenue would this bill generate?
REPRESENTATIVE MOSES said the estimate so far from the Department
of Revenue was $22.4 million the first year. He continued to read
the sponsor statement into the record.
"nonresidents would pay just over half of that, or $11.3 million.
REPRESENTATIVE MOSES stated again that was one-half of what would
be paid by nonresidents, or money that the state was not receiving
now. He further said it was only fair the nonresidence paid for
the services they received while in Alaska. He cited in his
community the police force doubled because of the transient and
seasonal workers. He continued to read the sponsor statement into
the record.
"Is this a big enough amount?"
TAPE 96-11, SIDE A
Number 0000
REPRESENTATIVE MOSES replied it was not a big amount compared to
the fiscal gap. He continued to read the sponsor statement into
the record.
"Why doesn't my bill raise the $200 million that some have
estimated an income tax to generate?
"Two reasons.
"First, the tax rate in house bill 449 is lower, at least for the
first two years, than the tax rate in the bill on which the higher
revenue estimate was based.
"The $200 million estimate was for a bill, introduced three years
ago, that would have imposed a 15 percent tax rate on a taxpayer's
federal income tax liability.
"Second, my bill provides a real and personal property tax credit
a taxpayer may claim."
REPRESENTATIVE MOSES commented that was the reason nonresidents
would pay over 50 percent the first year because it was a long-shot
that nonresidents owned real or personal property to receive the
tax credit. He also said the earlier bill did not address this
issue. He cited he would like to see this extended to the small
business owners to help compete with the national chains. He felt
they needed a break. The national chains were good for the
consumer, he alleged, but only in the short-run. He further
stated, for more information on how much HB 449 might generate, how
much it might cost to administer, and some of the technical aspects
of the measure, he deferred to the Department of Revenue. He said
there were other tax proposals such as a sin tax that was
uncontrolled due to the large number of nonresidents. He
reiterated over 50 percent in the first year would be paid by
nonresident workers. He also cited there were thousands of part-
time residents, such as fishermen, of which the industry was
oriented towards Seattle. Consequently, they were contributing to
the state of Washington rather than the state of Alaska.
Representative Moses commented the trickle down approach was not
working so again wondered why an income tax did not exist. He said
proposing such a bill affected him personally and cited $1,000
worth of damage was done to his store because of the marine fuel
tax. He further said a large portion of his customers in Unalaska
were nonresidents. Therefore, HB 449 was a detriment to his
business, and he would probably loose votes. In conclusion, he
said he would be happy to answer any questions.
Number 0522
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN cited a cabin fire example where so much fuel
had been added requiring a fire extinguisher to sequester the fire
back into the fireplace. He said it was the wrong direction to use
gasoline now to try to control the government. He stated he
championed Representative Moses' idea to take advantage of the
nonresidents. He cited the slope workers who made a lot of money
and lived in another state. Representative Green said an avenue
was needed to prevent that because the state provided services for
the period of time they were here. He further said it was often
more service per capita than required from the full-time residents.
However, adding an income tax was not responsible until state
spending was under control. He said he was not in favor of HB 449
at this time.
Number 0680
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS commended Representative Moses for
introducing HB 449. He said it took a lot of courage. He stated
he did not want to see a piece-meal revenue enhancement approach.
He wondered, as Representative Moses was part of the majority, if
the majority was establishing an overall plan that addressed budget
cuts and encompassed revenue enhancements such as an income tax.
Number 0795
REPRESENTATIVE MOSES replied the most comprehensive and fairest tax
was the personal income tax, and hoped it would be part of the
over-all plan. He felt he was in the extreme minority right now
proposing such a bill. Representative Moses stated the budget cuts
could cause a minor or major recession in the state. He also said
the state did not know about the federal budget cuts and how it
would affect Alaska. He further stated the entire fishing industry
was in the doldrums. He alleged the state was still benefiting
from the large capital expenditures in fiscal year 1994. He
reiterated there would probably be a big recession in Anchorage
because it was the service center. A tax did not always help the
economy, he said, but it would contribute millions of dollars to
the state by requiring nonresidents to contribute. He also cited
foreigners and some full-time residents sent every nickel made to
a foreign country because they had it so good here in Alaska which
did not trickle down into the economy. This, he asserted, was a
serious problem.
Number 0959
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he admired Representative Moses' courage
to introduce HB 449. He stated appropriate cuts needed to be made
before introducing new taxes. He said his constituents felt there
would be no motivation to cut the budget if new money was generated
by taxes. He said the people believed there was a bloated state
government and the legislature was not interested in controlling it
but only new revenue sources. He agreed with the arguments
regarding nonresidents. He said it could be argued in the case of
oil workers that the employer paid a disproportionate amount of
state taxes. He said the fairest tax was a sales tax because it
taxed the workers and non-workers according to spending. He also
said it did not penalize against spending or saving as an income
tax would. He said he did not support HB 449 and would not vote it
out of the committee.
Number 1071
CHAIR JAMES said ultimately a state income tax was needed, and the
income tax was the fairest tax imposed. A sales tax, she stated,
should be reserved for the municipalities and local governments to
receive money. She said everybody wanted to make exemptions to the
sales tax law creating an accounting nightmare born by the business
person. She also said she was concerned about the timing. She
said state spending must be reduced, but at the same time there
were many capital needs in Alaska that should not be ignored. She
further said nonresidents were not treating residents fairly and
most believed a tax should be collected from them.
Philosophically, she believed an income tax would create a more
interested and scrutinizing public. She said she did not feel the
threat between cutting and spending. She did not want to cut, to
simply cut, but a serious evaluation was needed to determine that
which validated continued funding. She also said Representative
Moses was brave to introduce HB 449. She asserted it was time to
start talking about it nonetheless. In conclusion, she said she
would like to hear from the Department of Revenue.
Number 1272
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said he had observed first hand the nonresident
and seasonal workers in Unalaska, and understood the concerns of
Representative Moses. He said Alaska was so big that it required
a unique approach to solve the problems. In conclusion, he stated
he agreed with some of Representative Moses' philosophy.
Number 1355
CHAIR JAMES said politicians liked to spend money, and her fear of
adding money to the pot would not allow the budget to be
scrutinized. She suggested finding the level of spending and use
the reserves to take care of the gap. She alleged there was not a
gap if all the earnings were included such as the permanent fund
earnings. However, touching the permanent fund was political
suicide. In conclusion, she said, as economic activity increased,
the only way to factor in the added necessary government services
was to tap into the income to provide for those needed services.
She did not know when that would be needed but it was good to talk
about it now.
Number 1455
REPRESENTATIVE MOSES said there would be drilling in the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) if the state did not have $18
billion dollars in the bank. He further said Congress did not have
sympathy for the state of Alaska because there was not a tax in
some form. He further said there was a chance the state's highway
fund would decreased from $200 million to $50 million. He said if
he was a Congressman from the lower forty-eight he would be very
envious of Alaska and vote to restrict any appropriations. He
alleged the majority of the states were jealous of Alaska.
Representative Moses also said the candidates had psyched the
public into thinking the solution was to cut the budget and no
taxes were needed. The public was gullible, he asserted. He also
said the legislature did not cut the budget appropriately. He said
he campaigned in 1992 on the fact an income tax was needed.
Number 1548
CHAIR JAMES reiterated she wanted to hear from the Department of
Revenue. She stated she was not ready to pass HB 449 from the
committee, but this was an opportune time to discuss the issue of
an income tax.
Number 1583
CHAIR JAMES further said HB 390 was referred to the House State
Affairs Committee and was requested to move to the next committee
of referral - the House Special Committee on Fisheries. She asked
if there were any objections.
Number 1603
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN objected.
CHAIR JAMES said she would not waive the bill due to the objection.
MR. WILCOX enquired about the status of HJR 51.
CHAIR JAMES said Representative Robinson objected to moving HJR 51
forward.
Number 1624
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS also objected to moving HJR 51 to the next
committee of referral.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIR JAMES adjourned the House State Affairs Committee at 10:05
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|