Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/06/1997 08:20 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 6, 1997
8:20 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jeannette James, Chair
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
Representative Kim Elton
Representative Mark Hodgins
Representative Ivan Ivan
Representative Al Vezey
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Fred Dyson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARINGS:
Human Rights Commission
Martha L. Gore
Kathy Wisthoff
The Reverend Richard K. Heacock, Jr.
- CONFIRMATIONS ADVANCED
Personnel Board
Katie T. Hurley
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
Alaska Public Offices Commission
Joyce Michaelson
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
*HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 16
Relating to a federal balanced budget amendment.
- MOVED HJR 16 OUT OF COMMITTEE
*HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 2
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to repeal of regulations by the legislature.
- MOVED HJR 2 OUT OF COMMITTEE
*HOUSE BILL NO. 11
"An Act relating to driver's licensing; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED HB 11 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 81
"An Act relating to the members of the board and staff of the
Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HJR 16
SHORT TITLE: SUPPORT FEDERAL BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) VEZEY, Ryan
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/27/97 150 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/27/97 150 (H) STATE AFFAIRS
03/06/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HJR 2
SHORT TITLE: REPEAL OF REGULATIONS BY LEGISLATURE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) ROKEBERG, JAMES
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/13/97 22 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/3/97
01/13/97 22 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/13/97 22 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
03/06/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 11
SHORT TITLE: DRIVERS LICENSE REQUIREMENTS FOR MINORS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) GREEN
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/13/97 30 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/3/97
01/13/97 30 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/13/97 30 (H) TRANSPORTATION, STATE AFFAIRS
02/05/97 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
02/05/97 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
02/07/97 260 (H) TRA RPT 5DP 1NR 1AM
02/07/97 260 (H) DP: COWDERY, SANDERS, KOOKESH
02/07/97 260 (H) HUDSON, WILLIAMS
02/07/97 260 (H) NR: MASEK
02/07/97 260 (H) AM: ELTON
02/07/97 260 (H) FISCAL NOTE (DPS)
02/07/97 260 (H) REFERRED TO STATE AFFAIRS
03/06/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
MARTHA L. GORE, Appointee
Human Rights Commission
6152 East 12th Avenue, Number 2
Anchorage, Alaska 99504
Telephone: (907) 338-3632
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on her confirmation to the
Human Rights Commission.
KATHY WISTHOFF, Appointee
Human Rights Commission
18739 Villages Scenic Parkway
Anchorage, Alaska 99516
Telephone: (907) 345-0831
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on her confirmation to the
Human Rights Commission.
THE REVEREND RICHARD K. HEACOCK, JR., Appointee
Human Rights Commission
3012 Riverside Drive
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Telephone: (907) 474-0700
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on his confirmation to the
Human Rights Commission.
KATIE T. HURLEY, Appointee
Personnel Board
P.O. Box 870157
Wasilla, Alaska 99687
Telephone: (907) 376-5736
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on her confirmation to the
Personnel Board.
JOYCE MICHAELSON, Appointee
P.O. Box 245014
Anchorage, Alaska 99524
Telephone: (907) 338-0469
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on her confirmation to the
Alaska Public Offices Commission.
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 24
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-4968
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HJR 2.
JEFFREY A. LOGAN, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Joe Green
State Capitol, Room 118
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-4931
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 11.
JUANITA HENSLEY, Chief
Driver Services
Division of Motor Vehicles
Department of Public Safety
P.O. Box 20020
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0020
Telephone: (907) 465-4361
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 11.
JOSH CULBERTSON
1175 Snowhill
Wasilla, Alaska 99654
Telephone: (907) 376-3059
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 11.
MARTHA MOORE, Research Analyst
Community Health and Emergency Medical Services
Division of Public Health
Department of Health and Social Services
P.O. Box 110616
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0616
Telephone: (907) 465-8631
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 11.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-22, SIDE A
Number 0001
The House State Affairs Standing Committee was called to order by
Chair Jeannette James at 8:20 a.m. Members present at the call to
order were Representatives James, Elton, Ivan, Vezey and Hodgins.
Members absent were Berkowitz and Dyson.
Number 0037
CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES announced for the record that Representative
Fred Dyson was excused from today's meeting due to personal
reasons.
Number 0059
CHAIR JAMES announced for the record the arrival of Representative
Ethan Berkowitz.
CHAIR JAMES explained that the resumes of the appointees were
included in the package of materials for the committee members.
The hearing today was an opportunity for the appointees to make a
statement and for the committee members to ask questions. The
motion today was a recommendation to move the confirmation forward
to a joint session for consideration. The motion did not reflect
any intent to vote for or against an individual's confirmation.
The minutes were available for those members that could not be here
today and/or a member could contact the individual directly. She
reiterated the House State Affairs Standing Committee did not
recommend, deny, or suggest to deny any individual's confirmation.
CONFIRMATION HEARING: MARTHA L. GORE, HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
The first order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Standing Committee was the confirmation hearing of Martha L. Gore
to the Human Rights Commission.
CHAIR JAMES asked Ms. Gore to explain to the committee members why
she was interested in serving on the Human Rights Commission.
Number 0255
MARTHA L. GORE, Appointee, Human Rights Commission, explained her
interest stemmed back many years. She had always been involved in
the community and in human rights. Therefore, when she was
approached and asked to submit her resume for the Human Rights
Commission, she said, "Well, somebody has to do it, and it's better
that somebody that cares does it." She felt she was fulfilling her
obligations as a citizen. It was important to be a part of the
community that one lives in and to be a part of the state that one
lives in. Therefore, by being on the Human Rights Commission she
was really just doing what she was suppose to do as a citizen;
trying to protect other citizens.
Number 0336
REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY asked Ms. Gore what did the Human Rights
Commission do, in her opinion?
Number 0352
MS. GORE replied it was an avenue available to all citizens,
because not everyone could hire a lawyer, if they felt that they
had been discriminated against. The commission was one place that
they could go to when they had been discriminated against or even
felt that they had been discriminated against; it was a place to go
for relief. It provided an opportunity for them to be heard and
for their case to be looked at to see if they had been
discriminated against. If there was reason to believe that they
had been discriminated against then they could go forward from
there. She reiterated, the commission protected the public which
was in the best interest of everybody; not just the public with
money.
Number 0420
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated that Ms. Gore saw the commission as a
legal service organization.
Number 0427
MS. GORE replied it was quasi-judicial. It was the first legal
step that was available to everybody. She did not believe that
everybody could hire a lawyer which was why it was necessary to
have the Human Rights Commission.
Number 0448
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Ms. Gore to summarize the grounds of a
complaint or hearing with the Human Rights Commission, or in other
words, discrimination on the basis of what?
Number 0469
MS. GORE cited sex and religion as examples. There were more cases
that dealt with discrimination based on race or sex than any other.
She also cited marital status, national origin and color as
examples.
Number 0497
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Ms. Gore to explain the grounds for
discrimination and what the rights were for marital status.
Number 0507
MS. GORE replied some believed married individuals with children
would not be good employees because of possible baby sitting
problems, for example. In addition, unmarried individuals could be
perceived as unstable while a married individual could be perceived
as more reliable or as a more upstanding citizen.
Number 0601
REPRESENTATIVE MARK HODGINS commented that the state was looking at
difficult times in regards to funding for state government. As an
appointee, she probably had some good ideas on how to help the
Human Rights Commission move forward with less resources. He asked
Ms. Gore if she had any ideas on how to make the Human Rights
Commission easier, more simple or better? What were her plans for
her new position?
Number 0642
MS. GORE replied that was one of the things that the commission was
looking at right now. She did not see how the commission could
function with less money. The commission was understaffed with new
cases coming in and over 300 unassigned cases - cases that were not
assigned to an investigator. The only way the commission could
prevent this from getting bigger and bigger was to have more staff,
and in order to have more staff, the commission needed more money.
"I don't see a way that this organization can effectively operate
with less money." Each investigator was assigned 60 cases and with
over 300 cases unassigned, less money was not an option.
Number 0718
REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ asked Ms. Gore if it was fair to say
that many people who used the Human Rights Commission did so to
resolve disputes there instead of in the courts?
Number 0729
MS. GORE replied, "I would say so." Occasionally, some used the
Human Rights Commission to establish the fact that they had a case
to go to court. Others, had no other avenue; the commission was
their only hope for justice.
Number 0764
MS. GORE reiterated that the commission did need help. It was very
worthwhile and necessary to protect the people. And, the only way
to do that was to give the staff what they needed to do their jobs.
CHAIR JAMES called on the committee members for a motion.
Number 0797
REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON moved that the appointment of Martha L.
Gore to the Human Rights Commission move forward to a joint session
for consideration. There was no objection.
CONFIRMATION HEARING: KATHY WISTHOFF, HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Standing Committee was the confirmation hearing of Kathy Wisthoff
to the Human Rights Commission.
CHAIR JAMES asked Ms. Wisthoff to explain to the committee members
why she was interested in serving on the Human Rights Commission.
Number 0927
KATHY WISTHOFF, Appointee, Human Rights Commission, explained that
she had only recently been appointed to the commission, so she just
started reading the briefing booklets provided on what the
commission did. She was very interested in the area of human
rights and believed that all of the citizens should have a level
playing field, so to speak, and that people should not have to face
discrimination in areas of employment or financing, for example.
And, if a person felt that he or she had been discriminated against
in the areas of a protected class - sex, race, color, national
origin, or religion-then he or she had the right to bring a
complaint forward. The mission of the commission was to
investigate the complaints and to determine if there was
substantial evidence to proceed. "I think that's a very important
function of the state to do that. Just, so that people have the
opportunity to have a fair life without discrimination."
Number 1001
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated that Ms. Wisthoff said the people had
a right to bring a complaint before the commission. He asked Ms.
Wisthoff is she was familiar with the work of the commission and
its work load?
Number 1020
MS. WISTHOFF replied, "Yes."
Number 1025
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Ms. Wisthoff, in her opinion, how many
of the cases brought to the commission were heard in a reasonable
length of time?
Number 1041
MS. WISTHOFF replied she did not have that specific information.
There were hundreds of cases that had not even been assigned yet
because of low staffing. And, hundreds of cases were also resolved
every year. She did not know the percentage of cases that had
merit and went forward or were dismissed, however.
Number 1071
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated there was not a correct answer. He was
just asking her opinion on how the process worked. He wondered if
most of the cases were being heard in a reasonable amount of time
or not.
Number 1082
MS. WISTHOFF replied, "No." There were not enough investigators
because of budget constraints so it was taking too long for most
cases to be heard.
Number 1098
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Ms. Wisthoff if she had any suggestions
and/or options that the legislature could pursue to help reduce the
back log of cases?
Number 1111
MS. WISTHOFF replied there were bills currently before both the
House and the Senate that would help save money by allowing the
commission to hold a hearing in Anchorage rather than at the site
of the discrimination - HB 155 and SB 103. It would save somewhere
in the neighborhood of $14,000 in travel expenses for one year.
MS. WISTHOFF further explained that a temporary increment in the
budget would be helpful to allow for extra investigators to clear
the back log so that the commission could get caught up with the
cases.
Number 1166
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Ms. Wisthoff how the majority of the
cases were settled? Did they go to court, for example?
Number 1178
MS. WISTHOFF replied that the majority of the cases were settled
without having to go to court. In fact, many were settled before
there was even a hearing. As-soon-as, a respondent was informed
that there was discrimination, the case was usually settled because
the respondent either agreed that there was discrimination or that
he did not want to pursue it further and stopped the discriminatory
practice.
Number 1221
CHAIR JAMES commented that she was extremely concerned about human
rights. "I am totally opposed to any discrimination against any
person for any reason." A few of the reasons had been selected,
yet, it did not cover the complete area of discrimination. She
understood, however, it was necessary to define something before it
could be prohibited. She was also concerned about reverse
discrimination. As a member of the commission, Ms. Wisthoff would
have to sort the perceived cases of discrimination and the
intentional cases of discrimination. Discrimination, she
explained, much of the time, was in the eye of the beholder which
was where the concern laid. She asked Ms. Wisthoff to explain her
position on this issue.
Number 1320
MS. WISTHOFF agreed with Chair James that there should not be any
discrimination regardless of any area. She also believed that the
human right's laws were ever changing. The current law had been
changed to add reasons for discrimination as they became noticeable
to the public. She was also concerned about reverse
discrimination. In fact, the commission had heard cases on reverse
discrimination.
Number 1366
CHAIR JAMES commented, as an example, somebody could discriminate
against a person because of the way he or she was dressed. And, if
that person met one of the lists of people that were discriminated
against then he or she had a case.
Number 1401
MS. WISTHOFF replied, "You mean because they're in a protect class,
so to speak."
Number 1438
CHAIR JAMES replied, "That's what I'm saying. That's right." And,
if they were not in a protected class, then people could
discriminate against a person for that same reason but there would
not be a case.
Number 1401
MS. WISTHOFF agreed that was a problem. The other role of the
commission was one of education. The commission spoke to groups
and to businesses to educate them on what was okay and what was not
okay in the work force, for example. She was also concerned about
the people that were not protected. She did not have an answer,
however.
Number 1438
CHAIR JAMES replied she was happy that Ms. Wisthoff recognized it
as a broader issue than just human rights.
CHAIR JAMES called on the committee members for a motion.
Number 1457
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ moved that the appointment of Kathy
Wisthoff to the Human Rights Commission move forward to a joint
session for consideration. There was no objection.
CONFIRMATION HEARING: THE REVEREND RICHARD K. HEACOCK, JR., HUMAN
RIGHTS COMMISSION
The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Standing Committee was the confirmation hearing of The Reverend
Richard K. Heacock, Jr. to the Human Rights Commission.
CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Heacock to explain to the committee members
why he was interested in serving on the Human Rights Commission.
Number 1488
THE REVEREND RICHARD K. HEACOCK, JR., Appointee, Human Rights
Commission, explained the Governor requested that he submit his
resume. After thinking about it, and because he was retired, he
did not have an excuse for not doing this kind of work. In
addition, part of the reason for deciding to submit his resume was
his background in human rights. His background was basically
theological, philosophical and academical. For five years he was
involved in international affairs and education at the United
Nations where he learned about the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights. Subsequent to the declaration economical, social,
cultural, civil, and political covenants were added forming the
International Bill of Human Rights. He served at the United
Nations as a non-governmental organizational representative for the
United Methodist Church. "So, I thought, well, with this kind of
background maybe that would be useful to the commission so I
submitted my resume to see how it went."
Number 1576
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked to call the appointee "Mr." Heacock in
this context.
MR. HEACOCK, JR. replied he could call him Richard or Dick or....
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY explained he was sensitive to the term
"Reverend". He believed it was used inappropriately nine times out
of ten.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated that Mr. Heacock talked about his
involvement in human rights from a theological perspective. "What
we deal with is a legal perspective. We have law and the law and
morality are not the same thing." He asked Mr. Heacock if he was
familiar with the laws regarding human rights and the statute that
authorized the commission?
Number 1621
MR. HEACOCK, JR. replied that the commissioners reviewed the
statute yesterday. He called in an excellent statute. "I think
most of us Americans do believe that fundamental human rights are
inalienable including the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness." The word "inalienable" had a theological connotation.
If human rights were inalienable that meant that no king, governor,
or legislative body, for example, had the right to take away those
rights from any human being. There was a difference of opinion,
however, as to the origin of the inalienable fact about human
rights. Some said there was a theological origin because we were
created by a "creator", therefore, the rights could not be taken
away by a human source. Others said because we were humans we had
human rights. He did not argue with either position. He believed
that the laws had developed in part through a theological and
philosophical way of thinking about humans.
Number 1697
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY explained the correct usage of the title
"Reverend" was: The Reverend, followed by the full name of the
person. It was not used like the title, "Mr."
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY further commented that the underlying issue
when dealing with the work of the Human Rights Commission was
property; an issue of depriving one party or another of property.
The legal system determined who had the right to the property. He
asked Mr. Heacock how he would balance the legal property rights
versus the legal human rights versus the theological human rights?
Number 1745
MR. HEACOCK, JR. replied that would be a difficult question to
answer in theory.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY responded that was what Mr. Heacock would face
everyday.
MR. HEACOCK, JR. further replied it would be easier to deal with a
specific example.
Number 1759
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY cited a routine example was a person
terminated from his or her job. The issues involved were: the
employer's rights and obligations to utilize resources in an
effective manner to produce a profit to stay in business; and the
citizen's right to not be discriminated against under the legal
rights to retain his or her job. He called it a two-edge sword
where both parties had rights.
Number 1791
MR. HEACOCK, JR. replied that was the hard work of the commission -
to determine the validity of a case. A person could certainly be
terminated on grounds that were appropriate or on grounds that
violated the statute.
Number 1812
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS commented that Mr. Billy Still was included
as a reference on his resume. He wondered how he was doing. He
was aware of his heart problems.
Number 1827
MR. HEACOCK, JR. replied he was looking pretty good.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS replied, "Good. He's a good man."
Number 1835
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Mr. Heacock to expand on what he did
with the United Nations and international human rights.
Number 1848
MR. HEACOCK, JR. replied his job was Director of a United Nations
Seminar program that was sponsored by the women's division of the
United Methodist Church and the General Board of Church and
Society. The program dealt with groups that came from all over the
United States to educate them about the United Nations staff and
the permanent missions to the United Nations. A guided tour was
included of the United Nations as well.
Number 1903
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated that he almost felt like he knew Mr.
Heacock because he had subscribed to Alaska Impact for a couple of
years now for the low price of $20. He also disputed the testimony
of Mr. Heacock in regards to his retirement because of his
extensive involvement in public affairs.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON further stated that the role of the commission
was one of education and dispute-resolution. It was important to
educate to keep things from progressing to the level of the
commission. The dispute-resolution role worked with people to get
beyond the problems to determine if there had been a violation of
the statute.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON further stated that the real problem the Human
Rights Commission had was: the delay in justice, the delay in the
dispute-resolution, and the delay in the education functions of the
commission. He mentioned his work in the Ombudsman Office, of
which, he would refer people to the commission and inform them that
it could take a couple of years before there would be any
resolution. This did not serve Alaskans well. He reiterated the
first-half of the job was the good people that served on the board
and the second-half of the job was the resources that was needed to
get things done.
Number 2003
CHAIR JAMES stated she also received Alaska Impact, but more than
half of the time she disagreed with the statements. She and Mr.
Heacock agreed on a lot of things and disagreed on others.
CHAIR JAMES further stated that she was concerned about the
unintended consequences of discrimination. She believed that
people should be treated fairly and with respect.
CHAIR JAMES further commented on the issue of human rights
infractions in China and the economic exchange. She did not have
a position on the issue, but she did recognized that it was an
issue that needed to be addressed. She asked Mr. Heacock if he
would share his ideas on the issue because of his background in
international human rights with the committee members.
Number 2083
MR. HEACOCK, JR. replied the United States should continue its role
to encourage other states to live up to the standards that were set
in the International Bill for Human Rights. It was a complex
question, and whether or not the influence of the United States was
greater without trade relations or with trade relations, was a
question he was not competent to answer.
Number 2114
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS moved that the appointment of The Reverend
Richard K. Heacock, Jr. to the Human Rights Commission move forward
to a joint session for consideration. There was no objection.
CONFIRMATION HEARING: KATIE T. HURLEY, PERSONNEL BOARD
The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Standing Committee was the confirmation hearing of Katie T. Hurley
to the Personnel Board.
CHAIR JAMES asked Ms. Hurley to explain to the committee members
why she was interested in serving on the Personnel Board.
Number 2160
KATIE T. HURLEY, Appointee, Personnel Board, explained she was
asked to serve on the board by the Governor. She had to think
about it because she had a commitment to a job that she was elected
to with the Matanuska Telephone Board. She also hesitated because
she was concerned about "filling the shoes" of the person she would
be replacing. Upon reflection, she decided she could not refuse
her Governor and she did have previous board experience-seven years
on the State Board of Education and five years on the Human Rights
Commission. She also had years of experience in the executive and
legislative branches of government and the private sector. She
also felt she could give the time to do the job.
Number 2233
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Ms. Hurley how she would make the
Personnel Board better?
Number 2245
MS. HURLEY replied, "I don't know that I can make it better." She
was there to approve or disapprove amendments to the Personnel
Rules and to hear appeals by employees. The Personnel Board was
excellent, and she was appointed to work with the other two
members. "I have been working with them, and we work well
together."
Number 2267
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Ms. Hurley what were the duties of the
Personnel Board?
Number 2276
MS. HURLEY replied the power in the law said that the board
approved or disapproved amendments to the Personnel Rules in
accordance with state law; heard and determined appeals by
employees in the classified service; and established rules of
procedure.
MS. HURLEY further stated that she also served on the Public
Employees Retirement Board which took additional time because it
met separately from the Personnel Board.
Number 2312
MS. HURLEY further stated that the Personnel Board could serve the
public better if there was an increase in its appropriation. The
members did not get a per diem, and she was not suggesting that
they should, but there should be adequate staffing to handle the
cases.
Number 2356
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON moved that the appointment of the Katie T.
Hurley to the Personnel Board move forward to a joint session for
consideration. There was no objection.
CHAIR JAMES called for a brief at ease at 9:03 a.m.
CHAIR JAMES called the House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting back to order at 9:08 a.m.
CONFIRMATION HEARING: JOYCE MICHAELSON, ALASKA PUBLIC OFFICES
COMMISSION
The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Standing Committee was the confirmation hearing of Ms. Joyce
Michaelson to the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC).
CHAIR JAMES asked Ms. Michaelson to explain to the committee
members why she was interested in serving on the Alaska Public
Offices Commission.
Number 2438
JOYCE MICHAELSON, Appointee, Alaska Public Offices Commission,
explained she was sought for the position. Upon careful
consideration, she decided it was worthwhile because a person had
not only the right but the duty and responsibility to be involved
in voting and electing good candidates to office. It was important
to have those that were involved and informed and it was also
important to have those that were watching for activities that were
not good. Therefore, she decided it probably would not take any
more of her time to sit on the commission as it would to be
involved in a campaign, for example.
TAPE 97-22, SIDE B
Number 0005
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Ms. Michaelson to explain her background
in campaigns and campaign finances.
Number 0012
MS. MICHAELSON explained that she had worked as a volunteer on
several campaigns on all levels of government-state and municipal.
She had been campaign treasurer, had served on steering committees;
had been an active participant in the precinct to get "out the
vote", and to register people to vote; had worked as an election
judge; had been a district and a state delegate to conventions; and
had been a community activist.
Number 0052
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Ms. Michaelson if she was familiar with
the 1974 Supreme Court ruling in Buckley v. Valeo?
MS. MICHAELSON replied she had heard of it but she could not recall
it right off the bat.
Number 0068
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied that was okay. It was just a
question. He asked Ms. Michaelson to comment on the First
Amendment of the United States and Alaska Constitution and the laws
limiting campaign contributions.
MS. MICHAELSON asked if Representative Vezey was talking about the
new law that was passed last year based on the initiative?
Number 0084
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied she could talk about any law that she
wanted. The law that was passed last year was the one that she
would be dealing with.
Number 0088
MS. MICHAELSON stated it would be an interesting few years because
it was going to be harder for those that had been involved in
campaigns in the past than the new people because it was such a
radical change. The Anchorage Municipal election coming up soon
was going to be the first test case. The commission should take a
role of informing people to help them stay on the right track.
Number 0145
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Ms. Michaelson to comment on the
interface of the First Amendment and the campaign finance laws.
Number 0160
MS. MICHAELSON asked Representative Vezey if he was talking about
the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the right of free
speech?
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied, "Correct." He was also talking about
the Alaska State Constitution.
MS. MICHAELSON replied there were limits to anything - free speech,
or the right to bear arms, for example. Somebody who violated
those rights, to the point of infringing on everybody else's
rights, lost their initial right. "I don't have the right to libel
you, nor you me. But, yet, we still have the right to express our
opinions." She believed she had certain rights and certain
privileges. There were limitations on having the excessive right
to speak versus stopping anybody else from speaking. A reasonable,
common sense approach was needed for everything. That was what the
legislators did on a daily basis while looking at the laws.
Number 0234
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated that the responsibilities for what one
said did not apply to people who were in public offices. But, one
could lie to a person seeking a public office, and one could libel
a person seeking a public office or a person who was already in
public office, and there was no recourse against that.
Number 0253
MS. MICHAELSON replied, "Well, unfortunately, that's true."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated it was not true.
MS. MICHAELSON stated it should not be true without a defense.
But, unfortunately that was what happened.
Number 0261
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Ms. Michaelson if she was familiar with
the new campaign finance disclosure law?
MS. MICHAELSON replied, "Yes." She was just as informed as most
people were.
Number 0273
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Ms. Michaelson to comment on how it
would stand up to constitutional review.
MS. MICHAELSON replied it had problems.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Ms. Michaelson, assuming she was
confirmed to the commission, how she would deal with the problem
areas?
Number 0283
MS. MICHAELSON replied that the commission could only enforce the
law as it was. She thought some of the things in the law were
ambiguous and were left to interpretation. She expected some
changes for clarification.
Number 0334
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS commented that the latest campaign law
favored incumbents. He wanted to know how active Ms. Michaelson
would be on the board to make the law more fair for the
challengers.
Number 0362
MS. MICHAELSON replied she was one of five commissioners.
Therefore, any proposal would have to go along with the others.
She would be willing to propose recommendations, if she was asked
to by the legislature, along with the rest of the commissioners.
The commissioners did not make the law but rather enforced it. The
commissioners would not be able to do anything other than what the
law said, but she reiterated she would be willing to make
recommendations.
Number 0405
CHAIR JAMES commented that Ms. Michaelson appeared not to be a
person that did not like government. There were a number of people
out there that did not like government for a variety of reasons.
Many of the reasons, she explained, were of perception rather than
reality. She asked Ms. Michaelson to address the issue of
perception versus reality and how should the government respond to
the issue? She believed that the Alaska Public Offices Commission
had some responsibility in that issue as well.
Number 0438
MS. MICHAELSON replied that was one of the reasons she decided to
accept the position. There were people in government because they
had an axe to grind and they really did not understand reality.
She had been involved with campaigns and what appeared to the
public was not always the case. Similarly, the legislature did not
like some of the provisions of the new campaign law when debated
last year, but it could not change it at the time. In addition, it
was a point of education. It was important for the public to air
their viewpoints, and when they were wrong it needed to be pointed
out to them. The public needed to hear both sides of a situation.
That was why the commission needed to take on the role of educator
- to inform both sides.
Number 0521
CHAIR JAMES stated that she was right on target regarding the
passage of the campaign finance law. It was passed in a defensive
mode rather than an offensive mode. The legislature had the
opportunity to tweak the law if it wished to this year. She was
not suggesting massive changes. She asked Ms. Michaelson, as a
member of the commission, if she would be aggressive in making
suggestions to the legislature in this area?
Number 0588
MS. MICHAELSON replied, "Actually, I think I already have been
aggressive in this area." The commission met last week, of which,
the new law was discussed. She stated at the meeting that she
expected the legislature to fine tune the law. In addition, the
leaders of the parties also needed to take a role by helping the
legislators. This was a nationwide issue so it took everybody's
input.
Number 0652
CHAIR JAMES agreed that this was a nationwide issue.
Number 0661
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY explained that the APOC was a quasi-judicial
commission and it would be asked, at times, to serve as a tribunal
to hear facts. He asked Ms. Michaelson if she would need to adjust
anything in her personal life to fulfill these obligations?
Number 0694
MS. MICHAELSON replied she could not take an active role in any
campaign as she had in the past. She did not have a political job,
but she did help make recommendations for regulations. She also
noticed that ever since she was asked to sit on the commission she
had wanted to write a letter to the legislators or to the editor,
for example, contrary to her usual tendency to make a phone call.
Number 0769
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Ms. Michaelson if she was active or a
member of any entity that would have a reason to participate in a
campaign or a ballot issue?
Number 0778
MS. MICHAELSON replied, "No." She was involved in the Mortgage
Bankers Association and the Professional Mortgage Women
Association, but they were not involved politically. If they did
get involved she would stay out of it.
Number 0811
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS moved that the appointment of Joyce
Michaelson to the Alaska Public Offices Commission move forward to
a joint session for consideration. There was no objection.
HJR 16 - SUPPORT FEDERAL BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT
The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Standing Committee was HJR 16, Relating to a federal balanced
budget amendment.
CHAIR JAMES called on Representative Al Vezey, sponsor of HJR 16,
to present the resolution.
Number 0868
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated the resolution was simple. The purpose
was to urge Congress to pass a balanced budget resolution and for
the states to ratify such a resolution. It also indirectly urged
the Alaskan Congressional Delegation to support the resolution.
Number 0889
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that Congress had already
considered this issue. "This resolution is a little bit like
shutting the barn door after the horses fled."
Number 0895
CHAIR JAMES replied it was not over until it was over. It was like
the appeals process in the courts. It was now in the U.S. House of
Representatives pending a vote then it would return to the U.S.
Senate. Therefore, the resolution was appropriate.
Number 0908
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated that the resolution also showed the
support of the legislature to the Alaskan Congressional Delegation
of their vote on a tough issue. He also believed that it would
come up for a vote again.
Number 0920
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS moved that HJR 16 move from the committee
with the attached fiscal note(s) and individual recommendations.
Number 0925
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected. The state was sticking its nose
into federal business when there was a lot of state business to
attend to. In addition, there was no testimony or evidence that
this resolution was in the best interest for the state of Alaska.
He also had reservations about the Federal Balanced Budget Act and
its ability to impact the state. There were many times when
federal funding was a quick and an easy way to correct the problems
of the economy which the act interfered.
Number 0990
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS stated that as long as the state of Alaska
received one cent from the federal government, it had an interest
in how the federal government operated. Therefore, it was very,
very appropriate for the resolution to move forward.
Number 1009
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated that the resolution was very much in
the best interest of the state of Alaska or he would not have
introduced it. "I don't think we are capable of imagining the
opportunities that this would create in Alaska, if the federal
budget was to be balanced." Most of the housing and development
needs in the state were met through financing and financing was
affected by the interest rates. A balanced budget would have a
profound affect on the interest rates.
Number 1045
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON explained that Senator Ted Stevens said a
hasty action such as this could put states like Alaska at risk.
Because, for every dollar that Alaska sent to the federal
government it received several dollars back which might not happen
under a balanced budget. Furthermore, this issue had been subject
to a great deal of debate in Congress which created unresolved
questions. He was distressed at how rapidly the resolution was
moving forward. For example, the committee members had not heard
testimony on how this would affect the social security system or
the ability to conduct a war on several fronts. "I think that this
right now with lack of debate probably speaks more to politics than
it does to policy."
Number 1108
CHAIR JAMES stated that she would be happier if the state did not
depend as much on federal funds because it dictated what and how
the state did things.
CHAIR JAMES called for a roll call vote. Representatives James,
Hodgins, Ivan and Vezey voted in favor of the motion.
Representatives Berkowitz and Elton voted against the motion.
House Joint Resolution 16 was so moved from the House State Affairs
Standing Committee.
HJR 2 - REPEAL OF REGULATIONS BY LEGISLATURE
The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Standing Committee was HJR 2, Proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to repeal of
regulations by the legislature.
CHAIR JAMES called on Representative Norman Rokeberg, sponsor of
HJR 2, to present the resolution.
Number 1157
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG, Alaska State Legislature, pointed
out to the committee members that Chair James was a co-sponsor of
the resolution. This issue had been before the body before; it was
passed by the Nineteen Alaska State Legislature. The proposed
amendment would allow the legislature to write the constitutional
equilibrium within the balance of the separation of powers. It was
important that the resolution was adopted to present it to the
voters for their approval. The resolution merely stated that the
legislature could by a joint resolution repeal a regulation adopted
by the state. "It speaks to the enormous amount of lawmaking
that's going on by the Administration." And, in my opinion, it was
the purview and the constitutional responsibility of the
legislature to make laws and to set policies in the state. The
letter in opposition from the Department of Law, dated February 28,
1997, made the case for the resolution. He cited the court case of
State of Alaska v. Live Volunteers whereby it was decided that the
legislature did not have the right to annul regulations by a
concurrent resolution in both houses. The decision generated the
efforts to amend the constitution. The votes failed because of a
lack of public support and the failure to educate the public
properly regarding the roles of the legislature and the executive
branch. The Alaska State Government was a very strong executive
government as a result of the constitutional model developments of
the 1940's and 1950's in the United States. He reiterated, the
resolution was intended to save money by providing that the
Administration followed the intent of the legislature. There were
a number of letters of support included in the bill package. He
continued to further obtain examples of support to enable the
movement of the bill forward.
Number 1358
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Representative Rokeberg to explain
how the resolution would work if it was adopted?
Number 1372
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG explained many times the legislature passed
a bill that required the adoption of regulations by the
Administration to implement the law. The Administration
promulgated the regulations under the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA). The APA required only one public hearing, but many times
there was more than one hearing because of public comments. The
legislature continued to look at that process and this resolution
was one element in providing a balance.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG further explained that many times the
Administration missed the intent of the legislature when adopting
regulations. He cited the Airport Leasing Bill that passed last
year. The regulations did not meet the intent of the legislation.
He testified at public hearing on the regulations himself.
Progress had been made, but the last draft had yet to be seen.
This was only one example of many. The last election was held in
1986, of which, 9,500 regulations had been drafted and promulgated
since that time. The attorney general said it was the
constitutional right of the Governor to have the ability to veto.
The Governor would have total control over anything that the
legislature did with his veto power if the legislature did not have
the super majority to override the veto. "The Governor in essence
could write law outside the body of this legislature and with the
veto power control the law making process of the state, in
essence." That was the balance and equilibrium that he was talking
about. The legislature, as the proper law making body, needed to
be able to override by nullification improper and unintended
regulations.
Number 1584
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY commented that he had a bill in the Nineteenth
Alaska State Legislature relating to this issue. In addition, he
believed philosophically that the legislature would not succeed in
getting the public to support the resolution. "For the simple
reason that the public would perceive this as the legislature
trying to give itself more power and the public does not wish to
give any form of government more power." He did intend to support
Representative Rokeberg 100 percent, however.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY further explained that he philosophically
believed in repealing the right that the legislature gave to the
Governor to make laws. In addition, the courts upset the balance
because it said that the legislature could delegate its power to
make laws, but it could not reserve to itself the right to veto
laws. He asked Representative Rokeberg, if the legislature failed
in this regard, would he support using the authority of the
legislature to take away the authority from the Governor the right
to make laws?
Number 1656
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied he understood the intent of
Representative Vezey. However, his bill was a shot gun approach
rather than a rifle approach. He would be amenable to a rifle
approach and not a shot gun approach by destroying all regulations.
Number 1691
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied, "So, you favor the right of the
Governor to make law?"
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied, "No, I do not." Like any
legislator he would like to further review the intentions of
Representative Vezey's bill.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Representative Rokeberg if he was
familiar with his bill that he was talking about?
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied, "No, not specifically."
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY explained that his bill said if the
Administration wanted law it would have to present it to the
legislature for ratification for his signature.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied, in other words, the ratification
of any regulations promulgated.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied the legislature did that by doing away
with the regulation process and did it through the statutory
process. The regulations became the statutes.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied he would support that.
Number 1745
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Representative Rokeberg if he had
any dialogue with the Department of Transportation regarding the
airfield issue raised earlier? And, how did it pan out?
Number 1757
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied he did have dialogue, of which,
some of it panned out and some of it did not. That was the issue -
a clash of intentions. Many times legislation was remedial in
form; it was intended to straighten out regulatory moras by giving
statutory guidance to the department. Nevertheless, it was too
complex of an issue so some regulations were needed. He was mostly
concerned with the end-product, however.
Number 1809
CHAIR JAMES explained she spoke this morning on the subject of
regulating the regulators. This was a stressful issue. She
appreciated Representative Rokeberg for bringing this issue
forward. The support of the public was needed to reform the
regulations. The issue needed to be attacked on every side. In
response to Representative Vezey's concern of doing away with the
Administrative Procedure Act, she did not find any legislator that
was willing to put extra effort into the statutory construction so
that the regulations were not needed. She saw legislators willing
to include a caveat that said "the department shall write
regulations to implement this chapter", for example, giving away
the responsibility.
Number 1930
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated, in response to the concern of
Representative Vezey and the passage of the resolution, that he
wanted to move the resolution through both bodies this year to give
the supporters the opportunity to organize.
Number 1982
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS moved that HJR 2 move from the committee
with the attached fiscal note(s) and individual recommendations.
Number 2006
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY objected for the purpose of taking a roll call
vote.
CHAIR JAMES called for a roll call vote. Representatives James,
Hodgins, Ivan and Vezey voted in favor of the motion.
Representatives Berkowitz and Elton were not present for the vote.
House Joint Resolution 2 was so moved from the House State Affairs
Standing Committee.
HB 11 - DRIVERS LICENSE REQUIREMENTS FOR MINORS
The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Standing Committee was HB 11, "An Act relating to driver's
licensing; and providing for an effective date."
CHAIR JAMES called on Mr. Jeffrey A. Logan, staff to Representative
Joe Green, sponsor of HB 11.
Number 2097
JEFFREY A. LOGAN, Legislative Assistant to Representative Joe
Green, explained the language in HB 11 had been introduced in two
previous legislatures. "But the fact that it hasn't yet become law
doesn't mean it's a dog." It was introduced by Representative
Green in the Eighteenth Alaska State Legislature. It was
introduced again in the Nineteenth Alaska State Legislature, and
made it to the Senate Rules Committee.
MR. LOGAN further explained that Representative Green and Juanita
Hensley, Department of Public Safety, worked on the language to
increase the support. The bill said to young drivers that driving
a motor vehicle was a privilege and it should be treated as such.
It required that a person with a permit must drive with a person
who was at least 22 years old instead of 19 years old. The ages
were lowered to garner more support. In addition, the bill
required that a permit be obtained before a drivers license. There
were also restrictions on when a person could drive during the day.
He referred the committee members to page 2, line 22 and read,
"1:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m." The bill also said that a person could
not get as many points. The bill was supported by Mothers Against
Drunk Driving, the Alaska Trucking Association, Inc., individuals
who worked with injured or killed young drivers, the U.S. Highway
Traffic Safety Administration and the Alaskan Congressional
Delegation. The letters of support from the Alaskan Congressional
Delegation were dated last year. They indicated that they would
forward a letter of support for this year as well. There was also
back-up material on statistics supporting the institution of this
type of program.
Number 2445
JUANITA HENSLEY, Chief, Driver Services, Division of Motor
Vehicles, Department of Public Safety, explained that the
department had supported this bill for the last several years. The
states that had implemented a graduated or provisional driver
licensing program showed drastic reductions in the number of
injuries and fatalities.
TAPE 97-23, SIDE A
Number 0001
MS. HENSLEY further stated that Alaska was awarded a grant, of
which, no money had been expended pending the enactment of the
bill. It was a grant to implement this type of a program and to
track it for a period of three years to see if it was working.
Last year, the bill passed with a vote of 37 to 0 with 3 excused
members. It made it to the Senate Rules Committee but was not
calendared in the last hours of session.
Number 0085
JOSH CULBERTSON was the first person to testify via teleconference
in Mat-Su. He agreed with Representative Joe Green. "I think it's
a good idea." He was concerned about the mandatory drivers
education class and the availability of the classes in the bush,
for example. But, if the class was put on the internet there would
not be a problem. He was currently a student at Wasilla High
School and had taken a drivers education course. "I just think it
would be a lot better and a lot safer for people that are out on
the roads."
Number 0166
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN asked Ms. Hensley if the bill would
require a mandatory drivers education class before a license was
issued to minors?
Number 0185
MS. HENSLEY replied, "No." The bill did not mandate a drivers
education class because of the diversity of Alaska; it would be an
astronomical fiscal cost to the state. The bill required an
individual to obtain an instruction permit and to hold that permit
for six months before obtaining a provisional license. The
provisional license restricted the time allowed to drive. An
individual would be required to hold that license for one year
before obtaining a full unrestricted drivers license. The bill
allowed for the training that young drivers needed because,
unfortunately, Alaskan young drivers tended to learn by trial and
error, as opposed to learning over a period of time under
restrictions and under parental purview.
Number 0311
MARTHA MOORE, Research Analyst, Community Health and Emergency,
Medical Services, Division of Public Health, Department of Health
and Social Services, explained the department supported HB 11 on
the basis that it believed it would help reduce crashes among young
teenage drivers. Motor vehicle crashes were the leading cause of
death for 16 to 17 year olds in Alaska and were responsible for
one-fifth of the injury deaths. From 1991 to 1995, 16 and 17 year
old drivers accounted for just under 2 percent of the licensed
drivers in Alaska. Yet, they were the drivers involved in almost
4.5 percent of the crashes. The rate of crashes for young drivers
was over two times that of adults. The most common factors that
put young drivers at risk were: immaturity, inexperience, teenage
passengers, unsafe speed, alcohol use, dangerous road conditions,
non-use of safety belts, and night driving. The policies that were
most effective in reducing crash rates for young drivers were ones
that involved a delayed licensure, such as, a higher minimum age
for full licensing, an extended period of supervised driving and a
night driving curfew. She further stated that in Oregon the state
estimated an $11 million savings which far justified the $150,000
cost of implementing the program.
Number 0451
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS moved that HB 11 move from the committee
with the attached fiscal note(s) and individual recommendations.
There was no objection, HB 11 was so moved from the House State
Affairs Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 0491
CHAIR JAMES adjourned the House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting at 10:04 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|