Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/09/1996 10:03 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
March 9, 1996
10:03 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jeannette James, Chair
Representative Joe Green
Representative Ivan Ivan
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Caren Robinson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chair
Representative Ed Willis
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 532
"An Act relating to determination by executive branch agencies of
the costs of reviewing, adopting, amending, and repealing
regulations."
- PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 348
"An Act requiring that all official interviews with children who
are alleged to have been abused or neglected be videotaped or
audiotaped."
- PASSED CSHB 348(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HOUSE BILL NO. 359
"An Act relating to the appointment and confirmation process for
members of certain boards, commissions, and similar bodies;
relating to terms of certain appointees; and providing for an
effective date."
- PASSED CSHB 359(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HOUSE BILL NO. 372
"An Act relating to liquor licenses issued to a restaurant or
eating place; and providing for an effective date."
- PASSED 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."
- PASSED CSHB 368(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
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
HOUSE BILL NO. 401
"An Act authorizing the issuance and sale of revenue bonds to fund
public wastewater systems, nonpoint source water pollution control
projects, including solid waste management systems, and estuary
conservation and management projects; authorizing the use of the
Alaska clean water fund to pay and secure the bonds and to pay
costs related to issuance and administration of the bonds;
authorizing certain measures to secure payment of the bonds; and
amending Alaska Rule of Civil Procedure 3."
- PASSED CSHB 401(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
(*First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 532
SHORT TITLE: COSTS OF ADOPTING REGULATIONS
SPONSOR(S): STATE AFFAIRS
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/28/96 2912 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/28/96 2913 (H) STA, FINANCE
03/07/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/07/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/09/96 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 348
SHORT TITLE: VIDEO/AUDIOTAPE INTERVIEW OF ABUSED MINOR
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) JAMES, Therriault, Kelly, Toohey
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
05/13/95 2173 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
05/13/95 2174 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, HES, JUD, FINANCE
08/26/95 (H) STA AT 1:00 PM
08/26/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
01/08/96 2383 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KELLY, TOOHEY
01/23/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
01/23/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/10/96 (H) STA AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 102
02/10/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/07/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/07/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/09/96 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 359
SHORT TITLE: APPOINTMENT PROCESS FOR BDS & COMM'NS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) PORTER, Green
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) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY
03/07/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/07/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/09/96 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 372
SHORT TITLE: RESTAURANT LIQUOR LICENSES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) ROKEBERG, B.Davis, Brown
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
12/29/95 2363 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/08/96 2363 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/08/96 2363 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, LABOR & COMMERCE
01/10/96 2405 (H) COSPONSOR(S): BROWN
03/07/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/07/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/09/96 (H) STA AT 10:00 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 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
01/25/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
01/30/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
01/30/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/01/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/01/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/29/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/29/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/05/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/05/96 (H) MINUTES(STA)
03/09/96 (H) STA AT 10:00 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 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
01/25/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
01/30/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
01/30/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/01/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/01/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/29/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/29/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/05/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/05/96 (H) MINUTES(STA)
03/09/96 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 401
SHORT TITLE: REVENUE BONDS: WATER & WASTE PROJECTS
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/08/96 2378 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/08/96 2378 (H) CRA, STATE AFFAIRS, RESOURCES, FINANCE
01/08/96 2379 (H) 2 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (REV, DEC)
01/08/96 2379 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
02/20/96 (H) CRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/20/96 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
02/21/96 2829 (H) CRA RPT 4NR
02/21/96 2829 (H) NR: ELTON, AUSTERMAN, KOTT, IVAN
02/21/96 2829 (H) 2 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (DEC, REV) 1/8/96
03/09/96 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
BARBARA COTTING, Legislative Administrative Assistant
to Representative Jeannette James
State Capitol, Room 102
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-3743
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided explanation of committee substitute
for HB 348.
WALTER GAUTHIER, Member
Guardians of Family Rights
P.O. Box 2246
Homer, Alaska 99603
Telephone: (907) 235-2809
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 348.
JAMES BALDWIN, Assistant Attorney General
Governmental Affairs Section
Civil Division
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
Telephone: (907) 465-3600
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 359.
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 110
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-4968
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 372.
TOM MCGRATH
1207 West 36th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Telephone: (907) 562-8730
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 372.
PAT FULLERTON, Chairman
Spenard Community Council
616 West 34th Avenue, 412
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Telephone: (907) 563-1156
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 372.
DOUG GRIFFIN, Director
Alcoholic Beverage Control Board
550 West 7th Avenue, 350
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 277-8638
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 372.
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.
KATHY ASHBY
1835 West 15th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 278-2302
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 368 and HB 317.
KEITH KELTON, Director
Division of Facility Construction and Operation
Department of Environmental Conservation
410 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 105
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1795
Telephone: (907) 465-5180
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 401.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-32, SIDE A
Number 0000
The House State Affairs Committee was called to order by Chair
Jeannette James at 10:03 a.m. Members present at the call to order
were Representatives Green, Ivan, Porter, Robinson and James.
Members absent were Representatives Ogan and Willis.
HB 532 - COSTS OF ADOPTING REGULATIONS
The first order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Committee was HB 532.
CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES announced 16, $0 fiscal notes were just
received from the various agencies. One department thought there
might be a $15 thousand to $17 thousand cost to produce the final
report, but it was willing to absorb it into the normal budget
process. She thanked the Administration for its cooperation. She
called HB 532 a simple bill, and announced she would like to move
it from the House State Affairs Committee today.
Number 0139
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER moved that HB 532 move from committee
with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. Hearing
no objection, it was so moved from the House State Affairs
Committee.
HB 348 - VIDEO/AUDIOTAPE INTERVIEW OF ABUSED MINOR
The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Committee was HB 348.
CHAIR JAMES called on Barbara Cotting, Legislative Administrative
Assistant to Representative Jeannette James, to explain the
committee substitute.
Number 0301
BARBARA COTTING, Legislative Administrative Assistant to
Representative Jeannette James, explained the changes to the
committee substitute, CSHB 348(STA) (9-LS1187/G). She referred the
committee members to page 1, line 12, "(1) one person from the
department;" and explained the word "department" referred to the
Department of Health and Social Services. She referred the
committee members to page 2, line 21 - 22, and explained the
following language was added for clarification, "unless the nature
of the investigation clearly indicates otherwise; and."
Furthermore, she explained on page 2, lines 27 - 28, a redundancy
was omitted. The bill was accompanied by a $0 fiscal note from the
Department of Public Safety. The Division of Family and Youth
Services (DFYS) also promised a $0 fiscal note.
Number 0399
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked if the millions of dollars were gone
from the original fiscal note? He further asked Ms. Cotting if she
had actually seen the $0 fiscal note from DFYS?
MS. COTTING replied Diane Worley, Director, Division of Family and
Youth Services, would probably bring the fiscal note with her. She
would be here shortly. She was running late today.
CHAIR JAMES called on the first witness via teleconference in
Homer, Walter Gauthier.
Number 0412
WALTER GAUTHIER, Member, Guardians of Family Rights, explained the
Guardians had four branches in Alaska, and more were being
organized. It was organized specifically because of the abuse of
families by agencies. He stated the agencies were case load
driven. Therefore, without a case load, they did not have a budget
or a job justification. He said there was no check and balance in
the system, and it was based on hearsay. The Guardians demanded
videotaping of all interviews in their entirety to provide a check
and balance to the system. He objected to the changes in the
committee substitute. The Guardians preferred the Senate version
to the House version.
Number 0603
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN asked Mr. Gauthier why he did not trust
the agencies and the formation of a work group?
Number 0643
MR. GAUTHIER replied the agencies involved were case load driven.
Therefore, they did not have a budget unless there was a case load.
Number 0703
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN thanked Mr. Gauthier for his time.
Number 0708
REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON moved to adopt CSHB 348(STA) (9-
LS1187/G), as a working document. Hearing no objection, it was so
adopted.
Number 0736
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON moved that CSHB 348(STA) move from the
committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal
notes.
Number 0769
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN objected for discussion purposes. He said he
understood the need for CSHB 348(STA) but was not comfortable with
the committee substitute because of native children who did not
speak the English language. He wanted some protection for the non-
English speaking children and families and suggested using a
translator, when necessary, for example. He announced he would not
hold the bill today, however.
Number 0834
CHAIR JAMES replied the testimony was pointed at DFYS. She
explained the bill was a management agreement between four
departments - the Department of Public Safety, The Department of
Education, the Department of Law, and the Department of Health and
Social Services. There was more protection because of the variety
of agencies involved. The public would be able to participate in
the memorandum of agreement process as well. She said she
understood the concerns of Representative Ivan, but felt they were
being met in the bill.
Number 1030
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN removed his objection.
Number 1041
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN wondered if the force of the four departments
would inhibit the indigenous community from coming forward with
their concerns.
Number 1087
CHAIR JAMES replied the community would not be talking to the four
departments, but rather the memorandum of agreement made by the
four departments.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN wondered if that was really a true concern of
the indigenous community before discussing the issue further.
Number 1110
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN replied he was concerned about the strong force
the four departments represented that a family would have to face,
whether native or non-native.
Number 1142
CHAIR JAMES replied the intent of CSHB 348(STA) (9-LS1187/G) was to
agree upon a method to conduct an interview through a management
agreement.
Number 1175
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN asked if the right to an attorney was
infringed?
CHAIR JAMES replied the right to an attorney was not infringed.
Number 1194
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said CSHB 348(STA) (9-LS1187/G) did not
change any laws. It created a standard policy for accountability.
It had been done in the past. She explained the bill was a safety
net. The bill also called for the best and most effective method
to safeguard the child.
Number 1314
CHAIR JAMES reiterated it was a written agreement between agencies.
Number 1381
MS. COTTING announced Diane Worley, DFYS, was present. The $0
fiscal note had been forwarded already to the House State Affairs
Committee. Furthermore, she explained the Indian Child Welfare Act
superseded state policy for further safeguards.
Number 1403
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said he would shut-up now.
CHAIR JAMES stated hearing no further objection, CSHB 348(STA) (9-
LS1187/G) was so moved from the House State Affairs Committee.
HB 359 - APPOINTMENT PROCESS FOR BDS & COMM'NS
The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Committee was HB 359.
CHAIR JAMES called on the sponsor of HB 359, Representative Brian
Porter.
Number 1462
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER explained HB 359 was an attempt to take the
politics out of the presentment and appointment process. It was
based on a lawsuit of which an incoming Governor tried to replace
a commission member of the Alaska Public Utilities Commission
(APUC). The lawsuit was still on-going. Therefore, the bill
attempted to prevent that from happening again as-well-as to
prevent the confirmation process from being circumvented. The
Administration had some concerns about the original bill resulting
in the committee substitute before the committee members today. He
asked James Baldwin, Department of Law, to come forward and discuss
the concerns of the Administration.
Number 1575
JAMES BALDWIN, Assistant Attorney General, Governmental Affairs
Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law, said he came
here today wearing two hats due to his long tenure with the
Department, and his position of advising the Office of the Governor
regarding appointments. The bill addressed the issue in a fair and
even manner. There were going to be differences because the
Administration represented different branches of government and
within each branch there were different attitudes. The changes in
the committee substitute did not restrict the Governor's or the
Legislature's prerogatives. The Administration was strongly
opposed to the original version. The majority of those issues had
been resolved in the committee substitute, however. The issues
were based on the philosophical changes of different
administrations creating disagreements for certain appointments.
The disagreements were usually for boards and commissions that
carried a salary and a term limit such as the Alaska Public
Utilities Commission (APUC). The first litigation case was
mentioned by Representative Porter as a result of a disagreement.
The case, he explained, was now in the Supreme Court. The main
issue was the propriety of the presentment process. Presentment
was presumed or impled to have occurred when it was a necessary and
an important step in the appointment process according to the
Administration. He explained, so far, the superior court judge had
agreed with the Administration. Furthermore, he commented the
attitude of a governor changed depending on where he was in the
term. According to the Office of the Governor it was not a problem
anymore because it had passed that point. It was now a problem for
the next governor. He agreed the issue needed to be resolved,
however, because it was a continuing problem. The bill therefore,
made presentment an important part of the process. Moreover, it
defined an "interim term," to end at the beginning of a session.
The individual could then be reappointed for the remainder of the
session, if confirmed. If the individual was not presented at the
beginning of the session, he was dismissed. This, he alleged,
would solve the legal problem, but it created an administrative
problem for the Office of the Governor. He commented
Representative Porter was concerned about a governor removing an
appointee during the interim, for example, for reasons other than
cause. He said that was not a major concern of the Administration,
however, because the Governor had to stand behind his appointments
and conduct himself in good faith. Furthermore, it created a heavy
administrative burden. He cited approximately 1,275 seats were
subject to the confirmation process, and according to the bill they
were due on March 1, followed by a reappointment presentation
period to the legislature. Mr. Baldwin said the spirit behind the
bill was to address appointments in the regular session. The law
suit contended that the legislature could imply that an appointment
had been presented. It appeared to be an administrative act only.
The language needed to be clarified. He referred the committee
members to page 4, line 12 and suggested adding, "`each' governor
shall present to the legislature the names of the people
appointed," so that a governor did not have to present the
appointments of his predecessor. He further explained there were
sections of the bill that made conforming amendments for boards and
commissions required by existing law to present a confirmation.
According to the Alaska State Constitution it was not necessary,
however. He explained, there had been a long standing disagreement
between the legislature and the Governor over the interpretation of
the Alaska State Constitution addressing the confirmation of
certain boards and commissions. The legislature had enacted bills
that created boards and commissions and made the members subject to
the confirmation process. The Administration said it was
unconstitutional because of the laws on the books. The
Administration still did not support that notion even though the
bill contained conforming amendments.
Number 2114
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER explained the conforming amendments were
consistent to prevent additional problems in the statutes.
However, he understood it would not solve the on-going debate
between the Administration and the legislature concerning the
interpretation of the Alaska State Constitution.
Number 2159
CHAIR JAMES commented the issue needed to be resolved through a
court decision.
Number 2207
MR. BALDWIN cited the 1976 case of Bradner v. Hammond. He
explained based on the decision of the case, the legislature
decided to make the deputy commissioners subject to confirmation.
It was challenged further, however, and determined the legislature
could not extend its confirmation to any office other than what was
expressly provided for in the Alaska State Constitution. The
constitution stated it had to be a regulatory, a quasi-judicial, a
principal department head, or a board that was a principal
department head to be subject to the confirmation process. The
legislature went its own way, however, and cited the Railroad
Corporation as an example. However, even though the Administration
and the legislature had disagreed at times, those that made it
through were usually signed by the Governor, which should not be
implied as a matter of law that it was required.
Number 2285
CHAIR JAMES asked if the boards and commissions conformed to in the
bill were advisory in nature?
Number 2290
MR. BALDWIN replied many were not strictly advisory. He cited the
Railroad Corporation as an example. It was not a principal
department head, a regulatory, or a quasi-judicial board.
Furthermore, the conforming amendments in the bill amended the
Historical Commission. He wondered why a confirmation was
necessary. It was not within the magnitude required by the Alaska
State Constitution. He further cited the Royalty Oil and Gas
Development Board. The Board merely advised the legislature
regarding oil contracts. He again wondered why a confirmation was
necessary.
Number 2333
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER replied some appointments were made and not
submitted to the confirmation process.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN replied it was a "mixed bag." He cited the
Royalty Oil and Gas Development Board members had never been
confirmed.
Number 2345
CHAIR JAMES wondered about the public state corporations.
Number 2361
MR. BALDWIN explained, historically, the drafters of the Alaska
State Constitution were tired of so many boards and commissions
that balkanized state government. The Alaska State Constitution,
therefore, was put together to confirm the central officer, and not
put together with the intention of the powerful public
corporations.
Number 2413
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER commented the next committee of referral for
the bill was the House Judiciary Committee. He said it would be
more appropriate to discuss these issue in that committee. He
asked the committee members to consider moving it forward today.
Number 2433
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN asked Mr. Baldwin to clarify the word
"balkanization."
MR. BALDWIN replied it meant to segregate or divide.
Number 2434
CHAIR JAMES agreed with Representative Porter that the legal
aspects of the bill should be reviewed by the House Judiciary
Committee. Furthermore, she believed the confirmation process
served an important purpose. It was the only place the public
could listen to the confirmation hearing. Therefore, she supported
more confirmation hearings rather than less as long as it did not
interfere with the operations of the government.
TAPE 96-32, SIDE B
Number 0060
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if there were any witnesses to testify
today on HB 359?
CHAIR JAMES replied, "no."
Number 0065
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commended Chair James for confining the
activity of the House State Affairs Committee to its described
functions.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved to adopt CSHB 359(STA) (9-LS1242/G) as
a working document. Hearing no objection, it was so adopted.
Number 0093
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN asked Mr. Baldwin to explain subsection (4) on
page 5.
Number 0109
MR. BALDWIN replied subsection (4) specified the duration of an
interim appointment. The appointment would last until the first
day of the next regular session unless confirmed. Upon
confirmation, the appointee would hold the office for the full
statutory term limit. However, if the appointee was not confirmed
or continued, reappointment was not possible.
Number 0151
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER called the subsection a safeguard so that the
Governor could not skip the process.
Number 0158
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON wondered if anyone had ever introduced
legislation to review boards and commissions that did not fit
within the Alaska State Constitution that were believed to need
legislative confirmation.
Number 0174
MR. BALDWIN replied not from the Governor's side. He could not
recall working on a bill of that nature. The issue was looked at
frequently, however.
Number 0191
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked Mr. Baldwin how many boards and
commissions violated the Alaska State Constitution?
Number 0197
MR. BALDWIN replied seven to eight.
Number 0203
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON further asked if those boards and
commissions fit under the corporations?
Number 0211
MR. BALDWIN replied the big corporation that was subject to the
confirmation process was the Railroad Corporation. The Governor
disagreed but signed the bill anyway.
Number 0238
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved that CSHB 359(STA) move from the
committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal
notes. Hearing no objection, it was so moved from the House State
Affairs Committee.
HB 372 - RESTAURANT LIQUOR LICENSES
The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Committee was HB 372.
CHAIR JAMES called on the sponsor, Representative Norman Rokeberg.
Number 0350
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG thanked the Chair for hearing the
bill today. He said it was a simple bill because it repealed a
current law. He stated, for the record, he did not have a vested
interest in the bill. He said he had a personal friend that was
interested in the bill, Michael Gordon, owner of Chilkoot Charlie's
in Anchorage. He reiterated he did not have an economic interest
in the beverage industry right now, only friendships. He did have
experience, however, in the industry.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG explained the Spenard Community Council
brought this issue to his attention. The Council passed a
resolution asking that taverns be repealed. He cited the reasons
were due to a disproportionate large number of drinking
establishments in the Anchorage Spenard area, and to the impact of
alcohol on society. He further said he wanted the opportunity to
right a wrong. Senate Bill 87, passed last year, established
taverns. He explained the bill was sold to the members of the
House of Representatives under the "Cyrano's" law. Cyrano's
Bookstore Cafe and Office Center was allowed under exception to
sell liquor. The statute allowed for 10 percent of restaurant or
eating places to apply for an exemption from the 50 percent food
provision to create a tavern. The current statute also did not
allow for entertainment after 9:00 p.m. He said HB 372 had an
economic impact as well. The beverage dispensing license was
valued and purchased on the secondary market for up to $450,000 in
the Anchorage area in the peak of the 1980's. Now, there was no
value in a restaurant license because of the decline in the
economy. House Bill 372, therefore, allowed for competition that
was not there before creating an economic impact. He further said
the sobriety movement in the state was another reason to repeal the
current statute. Moreover, the Anchorage Municipal Assembly
originally supported HB 372 until a member asked for a voter
reconsideration upon which it failed. The member who asked for a
voter reconsideration had failed to disclose to the Anchorage
Municipal Assembly he had applied for a restaurant license and
failed to disclose his 2.5 percentage ownership in a restaurant.
He suggested it needed to be further reviewed. He asked the
committee members to take a favorable look at the bill. The next
committee of referral was the House Labor and Commerce Committee.
He said it was a good bill and he asked again for the support of
the committee members.
Number 0826
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON wondered if Cyrano's could continue to
operate under HB 372.
Number 0839
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied it would not be able to sell beer
or wine without meeting the restaurant 50 percent requirement. He
said the bill would not close the establishment, however.
Number 0859
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN replied it could sell more sandwiches, for
example, to meet the 50 percent requirement.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON replied that was a good point.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG wondered if Cyrano's had even applied for
an exemption. He reiterated the bill would not put anybody out of
business.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON wondered if the exempted establishments
would be able to continue to operate until they were shut down.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied Cyrano's had applied, but had not
received it yet.
CHAIR JAMES called on the first witness via teleconference in
Anchorage, Tom McGrath.
Number 0911
TOM MCGRATH said he supported HB 372. He explained Cyrano's was
not exempt under the law now. The menu had been expanded to cover
the 50 percent requirement. He said many of the Senators and
Representatives did not know about the exemption provision in SB
87. The exemption created the possibility of 15 taverns in
Anchorage. He cited there were 117 liquor licenses in Anchorage,
while the state law only allowed 77. This was due to a grandfather
provision. House Bill 372, therefore, would correct a wrong and
improve the quality of life in Alaska.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in
Anchorage, Pat Fullerton.
Number 1073
PAT FULLERTON, Chairman, Spenard Community Council, said the abuse
of alcohol had been a problem in the Spenard area for many years.
He said he was a recovering alcoholic and was about to celebrate
his 7th year of sobriety. Moreover, the current law allowed the
establishment of what he called a "cheap" bar. He wanted to see it
repealed so that it did not add further to the proliferation of the
liquor license.
CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness via teleconference in
Anchorage, Doug Griffin.
Number 1201
DOUG GRIFFIN, Director, Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, said the
previous testimony was an accurate description of what the current
bill allowed by Representative Rokeberg and the Spenard Community
Council. He did not support HB 372, however. He assumed the
legislature knew what it was doing when passing the original bill
by including the exemption provision. Moreover, he reminded the
committee members, the local governing bodies would have to approve
these licenses so safeguards did exist. The original bill did not
create a separate type of license due to over licensing based on
population quotas, for example.
Number 1357
CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Griffin if there had been any exempt licenses
distributed?
Number 1370
MR. GRIFFIN replied, "yes." He cited Legal Pizza and Railway
Brewing Company in Anchorage, and the Chandalar Inn in the
Matanuska-Susitna Borough. There were several in the process as
well.
Number 1485
CHAIR JAMES thanked Mr. Griffin for his testimony. She was
concerned about the establishments caught between the two laws.
She was concerned about the economic impact as a result of the
establishments changing their business. She suggested a
grandfather provision.
Number 1569
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said she was also concerned about the
establishments caught between the two bills and supported a
grandfather provision. She was not opposed to moving the bill
forward, however.
Number 1620
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER explained many establishments tried to
circumvent the intent of the law allowing beer and wine with dinner
by offering potato chips as food, for example. He said he was not
aware of the exception provision last year when he voted in favor
of the legislation.
Number 1696
CHAIR JAMES commented she had fond memories of taverns in
Washington and Oregon where she grew up. She was not negative
towards taverns.
Number 1760
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said the state of Washington distinguished
between taverns and cocktail lounges. The cocktail lounges fell
under the restaurant requirements similar to Alaska's.
CHAIR JAMES announced to Frank Smith in Barrow that HB 348 had
already been moved from the House State Affairs Committee. She
asked for his testimony in writing for the record.
Number 1885
FRANK SMITH thanked the Chair. He said he would submit his
testimony in writing for the record.
Number 1910
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commented he did not have fond memories of
taverns because they attracted individuals that liked to drink too
much where he grew up in Wisconsin. He would support anything to
reduce that.
Number 1979
CHAIR JAMES reiterated her biggest concern were for the
establishments that might fall through the cracks.
Number 2059
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG explained he was working on a potential
amendment to address her concern. He did not want to disrupt the
commerce of the state. He pledged the issue would be reviewed in
the next committee of referral - the House Labor and Commerce
Committee.
Number 2109
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN stated he was also concerned about the
establishments that would be affected by this bill.
Number 2137
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG explained he was a good friend of the
father of Richard Sassary, who wrote a letter against HB 372.
CHAIR JAMES wondered if friendship was taking Representative
Rokeberg a long way with this issue.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied, "no." He just knew a lot of
people in Anchorage.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON stated, for the record, she grew up in
Texas.
Number 2198
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved that HB 372 move from the committee
with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. Hearing
no objection, it was so moved from the House State Affairs
Committee.
HB 368 - ELECTION CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM
HB 317 - ELECTION CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM
The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Committee was HB 368 and HB 317.
CHAIR JAMES called on Representative David Finkelstein to explain
the committee substitute.
CHAIR JAMES announced she wanted to move the bill forward today.
Number 2381
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved to adopt CSHB 368(STA) (9-LS1348/C) as
a working document. Hearing no objection, it was so adopted.
Number 2413
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN explained the comparison chart
distributed to the committee members. The first column contained
the provisions in the current law, the second column contained the
provisions in the initiative, and the third column contained the
provisions in the committee substitute (9-LS1348/C). The major
provision were: contributions from individuals, contributions from
parties, contributions not from individual (i.e. corporations,
unions), contributions from groups of individuals, lobbyists, when
money can be raised, personal use of campaign funds, carry forward
of campaign surpluses, out-of-state contributions, independent
expenditures, public funds, serious violations, civil penalties,
and power to enforce.
TAPE 96-33, SIDE A
Number 0063
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN wondered where a party was defined.
CHAIR JAMES replied that would be addressed in the proposed
amendments.
Number 0470
CHAIR JAMES complimented Representative Finkelstein for his work on
the comparison chart. She explained there were two definitions of
a political party presented. She liked the first definition. The
second definition would include all organizations affiliated with
a political party in the contribution limits. She was concerned
about the organizations that did not want to be a part of the party
and remain a group.
Number 0518
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN concurred with her support for the first
definition. He stated the second definition would cause confusion.
Number 0603
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved to adopted Amendment 1 (9-
LS1348/C.1/B). No one objected, but the discussion continued.
Number 0626
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if the amendments had been presented
to the initiative movement, and wondered which political party
definition he supported.
Number 0640
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN replied there really was not a lot of
difference between the two definitions. The key question was who
determined who was a subdivision, and both definitions defined it
as 3 percent of the total votes casted. He stated the
differentiation between a subordinate unit and other units was
artificial. All the groups out there should have a choice of
joining the party, or being their own group, and both definitions
allowed that. A differentiation was not intended in the
initiative, however.
Number 0765
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said the first definition allowed a clear
separation between the groups that were not traditional party
subgroups. Furthermore, it would allow the differentiation between
the subgroups of the parties and the affiliated groups of the
parties.
Number 0821
CHAIR JAMES explained the concept of the district and state central
party committees. A coordination of the contribution limits was
necessary amongst all the subordinates, therefore, a centralized
decision making process was needed. She called it an unwieldy
situation.
Number 1026
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said everyone agreed that the affiliated
groups should have a choice, and both definitions allowed that
choice. It was more obvious, however, in the second definition
under subsection (C). According to the first definition it was
necessary to be subsumed within the party. He was afraid the first
definition would be interpreted to preclude some groups from
becoming part of the party if they wanted to. The second
definition gave the choice under subsection (C).
Number 1076
CHAIR JAMES said she did not read the definitions the same as
Representative Finkelstein. A political party according to the
second definition did not have the option to be a group, but only
a political party.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN replied he interpreted it differently.
There was nothing that mandated it in the second definition.
Subsection (C) read, "an organization that, by virtue of the rules
or bylaws of the organized group of voters qualifying as a
political party under (A) of this paragraph, is affiliated with the
political party."
Number 1126
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER replied subsection (C) did not give the party
the ability say "yes" or "no" to that.
Number 1134
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN replied according to subsection (C) it
was up to the rules of the party.
Number 1144
CHAIR JAMES responded the only choice for a person to be a group
was for the party to disassociate with them. It was not in the
best interest of either Parties to cut the life-line.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN replied, according to that
interpretation, both definitions achieved the same thing.
CHAIR JAMES asked if there was further objection to Amendment 1.
Hearing none, it was so adopted.
Number 1179
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN wondered about lobbyists contributing in their
own district. He said lobbyists lived mostly in Anchorage and
Juneau.
Number 1247
CHAIR JAMES replied it was a perception issue. The general public
did not want a lobbyist to give money to anybody, but he also had
a general right as a citizen of a district to contribute to his
district. It was a constitutional issue as well. Furthermore, it
was not a problem for one that did not have a lobbyist in his
district.
Number 1343
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON stated most lobbyists would probably agree
with a total ban on giving money.
CHAIR JAMES agreed with Representative Robinson. Lobbyists felt
obligated to give money in order to do business again.
Number 1388
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved to adopt Amendment 2 (9-LS1260/F.2).
CHAIR JAMES asked Representative Finkelstein to explain the
amendment.
Number 1403
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN explained Amendment 2 was a technical
and conforming amendment. It removed "50 percent" in current law
and inserted "33 1/3 percent" for the support or opposition of a
candidate and the inclusion of the candidates name as part of the
group. This was based on a recommendation from the Alaska Public
Offices Commission (APOC).
CHAIR JAMES stated hearing no further objection, Amendment 2 was so
adopted.
Number 1454
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved to adopt Amendment 3 (9-LS1260/F.3).
CHAIR JAMES asked Representative Finkelstein to explain the
amendment.
Number 1466
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN explained Amendment 3 was a technical
amendment. It removed unnecessary language. It did not affect the
content, however.
CHAIR JAMES stated hearing no further objection, Amendment 3 was so
adopted.
Number 1488
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved to adopt Amendment 4 (9-LS1260/F.4).
CHAIR JAMES asked Representative Finkelstein to explain the
amendment.
Number 1500
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN explained Amendment 4 was a technical
amendment. An individual could make a contribution to a political
party as well as a group.
CHAIR JAMES stated hearing no further objection, Amendment 4 was so
adopted.
CHAIR JAMES explained Amendment 2 - 4 should read CSHB 368(STA) and
not CSSB 191( ) as expressed in the draft amendments.
Number 1626
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON moved that CSHB 368(STA) (9-LS1348/C) move
from the committee with individual recommendations and attached
fiscal notes. Hearing no objection, it was so moved from the House
State Affairs Committee.
CHAIR JAMES announced she would attached a $0 fiscal note.
CHAIR JAMES apologized to the teleconference testifiers for not
calling on their testimony. She suggested they submit a written
statement for the record.
Number 1770
KATHY ASHBY responded via teleconference in Anchorage that it would
be futile. She only suggested that to make us feel better.
Number 1818
CHAIR JAMES replied it would become part of the record with a
statement explaining the circumstances. She apologized again.
MS. ASHBY said she felt very disaffected by the whole procedure.
She felt betrayed. The information the committee members were
discussing today did not match the information at the Legislative
Information Office (LIO) in Anchorage.
CHAIR JAMES apologized to Ms. Ashby again. She announced she would
personally forward information to her and personally notify her of
the next time the bill would be heard.
HB 401 - REVENUE BONDS: WATER & WASTE PROJECTS
The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Committee was HB 401.
CHAIR JAMES called on Keith Kelton, Department of Environmental
Conservation, to present the bill.
Number 1900
KEITH KELTON, Director, Division of Facility Construction and
Operation, Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC),
explained HB 401 was by the request of the Governor. It was a bill
that would benefit all the communities in Alaska. He asked the
committee members to look at the bill and not at who introduced the
piece of legislation.
Number 1910
CHAIR JAMES replied the assumption that the bill would not be
looked favorably upon because it was introduced by the Governor was
not true.
Number 1919
MR. KELTON replied, "I stand corrected, Madame Chairman. I
apologize."
MR. KELTON said the DEC had been operating a loan program for
building wastewater facilities throughout the state for the last
seven to eight years. Prior to that the federal government
financed a grant program under the Clean Water Act. In 1987 the
federal government eliminated the grant program and substituted it
with a loan program. The demand for the loans had been steadily
increasing while the state general funds had decreased. Therefore,
the grants were less available. The DEC was interested in
developing an alternative funding source for communities that had
the ability to borrow money and had a dedicated revenue stream to
repay the loans. The problem currently was that the loan fund was
demanded in excess of the supply of money available. Therefore,
the DEC introduced legislation to allow the Department to leverage
the remaining corpus of the loan fund and allow for increased
dollars to be available for the loans. To date, Alaska had a good
track record for repayments, not one late payment.
MR. KELTON referred the committee members to a chart prepared by
DEC. He explained the Alaska Clean Water Fund (ACWF) was
capitalized by federal grants representing about $80 million. Of
that $80 million, $50 million had gone out as low interest loans to
the various Alaskan municipal projects. One year after completion,
payments were made back including the principal and interest to the
ACWF. The interest rate fluctuated with the municipal bond index,
currently at 3.55 percent.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if the bond was tax free?
MR. KELTON replied it was tax exempt. Furthermore, HB 401 created
a bond redemption fund to pay for the bond issuance cost
administered through the State Bond Committee including the
Department of Revenue, Department of Administration, and Department
of Commerce and Economic Development. The Senate amended the bill
to include a $15 million limit of bonds sold each year, and a total
cap of $150 million. He reiterated the bill was to provide a
revolving fund mechanism for the incorporated communities that had
a dedicated revenue source for repayments. Anchorage was the big
participant, but communities such as Craig and Homer, for example,
had applied for a loan. The program included wastewater and solid
waste, but not drinking water. There was legislation at the
federal level to address a drinking water program, however.
Number 2378
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN wondered if the investor was investing in the
program and not in the individual location.
Number 2394
MR. KELTON replied the investor was putting his money into the pot.
The Department had to follow an intended use plan on an annual
basis. The plan used a criteria rank system to determine which
projects would rank at the top, if it exceeded the amount of money
available.
Number 2440
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if the criteria ranking system was based
on need, the ability to repay, or a combination of the two?
Number 2447
MR. KELTON replied the first concern was based on need.
Environment and health were also considered, for example. The
ability to repay was looked at after everything else was
considered.
Number 2475
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN wondered if energy was a concern in the rural
areas.
TAPE 96-33, SIDE B
Number 0000
MR. KELTON said the rural areas were eligible to apply. The
additional cost would make it more difficult for it to come up with
a revenue matching source, however. He did not expect it to be
widely used in the rural areas of the state.
Number 0022
CHAIR JAMES asked if it was a 50 percent match?
MR. KELTON replied it was strictly a loan.
CHAIR JAMES asked if a community could get a loan for an entire
project?
MR. KELTON replied, "that's correct."
CHAIR JAMES further wondered if a community could get a grant and
apply it towards the loan.
Number 0035
MR. KELTON replied, "that's exactly right, Madame Chairman." The
Department could mix and match with the loan program in any ratio.
Number 0129
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN moved to adopt Amendment 1 (9-GH2014/A.1).
Number 0135
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN objected for discussion purposes.
Number 0144
MR. KELTON explained Amendment 1 was a technical amendment. It was
based on a suggestion by the Department of Revenue. The bill was
written in conjunction with the Department of Revenue and the
Department of Law. The bill would impact the Department of Revenue
due to the bond.
Number 0184
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN removed his objection.
CHAIR JAMES stated hearing no further objection, Amendment 1 was so
adopted.
Number 0186
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN moved to adopt Amendment 2 (9-GH2014/A.2).
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN objected for discussion purposes.
MR. KELTON explained Amendment 2 was based on a suggestion by
Senator John Torgerson for greater legislative control. The
Department of Environmental Conservation agreed with the amendment.
Number 0238
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN removed his objection.
CHAIR JAMES stated hearing no further objection, Amendment 2 was so
adopted.
Number 0246
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN moved to adopt Amendment 3 (9-GH2014/A.3).
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN objected for discussion purposes.
Number 0255
MR. KELTON explained Amendment 3 modified eligibility. The Senate
believed a state agency should not be part of the eligibility
process. Therefore, the amendment deleted "state agency" and
inserted "other qualified entity." The amendment was based on the
recommendation of Senators Fred Zharoff and Lyman Hoffman. The
amendment also defined "other qualified entity" to include a
municipality and those terms used in 33 U.S.C. 1383. The
Department of Law, the Department of Revenue, and the Department of
Environmental Conservation supported the amendment.
Number 0328
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN removed his objection.
CHAIR JAMES stated hearing no further objection, Amendment 3 was so
adopted.
Number 0337
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER wondered if the suggestions by the Anchorage
Water and Wastewater Utility (AWWU) were considered.
Number 0348
MR. KELTON replied the Anchorage Water and Wastewater Utility had
removed their amendments. The amendments were considered earlier
when it appeared the bill would not receive a hearing. The
amendments were to simplify the bill for further support.
Number 0379
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER wondered if the Anchorage Water and
Wastewater Utility supported the bill.
MR. KELTON replied the AWWU definitely supported the bill.
CHAIR JAMES replied the people in her district were interested in
the bill, but were concerned about the payback.
Number 0398
MR. KELTON explained two out of the three concerns that Anchorage
had were addressed in the amendments adopted today.
Number 0420
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN mentioned the problems associated with
wastewater treatment such as hepatitis. He was still concerned
about the lack of energy to support the projects in the rural
areas. Otherwise, he was in full support of HB 401.
Number 0442
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved that CSHB 401(STA) move from the
committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal
notes. Hearing no objection, it was so moved from the House State
Affairs Committee.
MR. KELTON thanked the committee members.
Number 0497
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIR JAMES adjourned the House State Affairs Committee meeting at
12:38 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|