Legislature(2001 - 2002)
03/15/2001 08:03 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 15, 2001
8:03 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative John Coghill, Chair
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Hugh Fate
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Harry Crawford
Representative Joe Hayes
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Gary Stevens
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 149
"An Act relating to correctional facility space and to
authorizing the Department of Corrections to enter into an
agreement to lease facilities for the confinement and care of
prisoners within the Kenai Peninsula Borough."
- HEARD AND HELD
CONFIRMATION HEARINGS
Department of Administration
Jim Duncan, Commissioner
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
Alaska Public Offices Commission
Mark Handley, Commissioner
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
Alaska Human Rights Commission
Judge Roy Madsen, Commissioner
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 149
SHORT TITLE:PRIVATE PRISON IN KENAI
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)CHENAULT
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/26/01 0437 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/26/01 0437 (H) STA, FIN
02/26/01 0437 (H) REFERRED TO STATE AFFAIRS
03/13/01 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/13/01 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(STA)
03/15/01 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE CHENAULT
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 432
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HB 149.
ROY GILBERTSON, Mayor
City of Delta Junction
P.O. Box 229
Delta Junction, Alaska 99737
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 149.
PETE HALGREN, Director
Department of Economic Development
City of Delta Junction
P.O. Box 229
Delta Junction, Alaska 99737
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 149.
SUSAN KEMP, City Council Member
City of Delta Junction
P.O. Box 229
Delta Junction, Alaska 99737
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 149.
NAT GOOD, City Council Member
City of Delta Junction
P.O. Box 229
Delta Junction, Alaska 99737
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 149.
MARGOT KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Corrections
431 North Franklin Street, Suite 203
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 149.
RICHARD VAN HATTEN, President
Correctional Officers Bargaining Unit
Public Safety Employees Association
840 Set Net Drive
Kenai, Alaska 99611
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to a privately
operated prison, as authorized by HB 149.
KEVIN WYATT
40635 Belnap Drive
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to a privately
operated prison, as authorized by HB 149.
JIM DUNCAN, Commissioner Appointee
Department of Administration
P.O. Box 110200
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0200
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the position of
commissioner.
HAROLD HEINZE
1336 Staubbach Circle
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
POSITION STATEMENT: Asked questions of commissioner appointee,
Department of Administration.
MARK HANDLEY, Appointee
Alaska Public Offices Commission
630 Dixon Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Alaska Public
Offices Commission.
JUDGE ROY MADSEN, Appointee
Alaska Human Rights Commission
P.O. Box 726
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Alaska Human
Rights Commission.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-22, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR JOHN COGHILL called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:03 a.m. Committee members
present at the call to order were Representatives Coghill,
James, Fate, Wilson, Crawford, and Hayes. Representative
Stevens was absent.
HB 149-PRIVATE PRISON IN KENAI
CHAIR COGHILL announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 149, "An Act relating to correctional facility
space and to authorizing the Department of Corrections to enter
into an agreement to lease facilities for the confinement and
care of prisoners within the Kenai Peninsula Borough."
Number 0165
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE CHENAULT, Alaska State Legislature, came
forward as sponsor of HB 149.
CHAIR COGHILL called committee members' attention to the fiscal
note for HB 149 that had been distributed.
Number 0274
ROY GILBERTSON, Mayor, City of Delta Junction, testified by
teleconference. He recalled that when he joined the city
council in 1998, there was an existing agreement with Allvest,
Inc., to entertain a prison at Fort Greely. About three months
later, a public vote indicated that the people of Delta Junction
wanted to see Fort Greely re-used and that a prison would be a
possible use.
MR. GILBERTSON noted that at that point, Allvest had been ready
to file suit against the city. He and two other councilmen met
several times with Allvest's attorneys and worked out a
settlement agreement, which he thought was a very good one for
Delta Junction. They brought the proposed agreement to the city
council, which at a public meeting on March 30 approved it and
passed Ordinance 9904 expressing the city's agreement and intent
to move forward with the prison project.
MR. GILBERTSON went on to say that the public was not
unanimously in favor of the idea. A referendum was brought
against the city council action. That prompted a lawsuit from
Allvest to the city clerk. The city council passed Ordinance
2002 that suspended Ordinance 9904, "and that brought the
lawsuit directly to the city and we have been trying to work
through that ever since then," he said. He noted that the city
council simultaneously has been working with the military.
"Basically that's where we are right now," he said. "We have a
lawsuit against the city, the property isn't available, we
haven't had much interaction by the State of Alaska and
absolutely no financial help on this whatsoever...."
Number 0615
CHAIR COGHILL asked Mr. Gilberton if he objected to HB 149 or
thought it would cause problems for Delta Junction in relation
to the lawsuit.
MR. GILBERTSON said HB 149 would repeal HB 53, which gives Delta
Junction authority to build a prison. "It also gives Kenai
something that they didn't give Delta, the ability to build a
prison off [the Fort Greely] site," he said. "Yes, it would
hurt Delta Junction, because right now there's no certainty that
...[a prison] is coming here." Since the military has withheld
the use of Fort Greely, the only way there could be a prison
built in Delta Junction would be for the legislature to change
HB 53 to allow the prison to be built on another site.
Number 0747
PETE HALGREN, Director, Department of Economic Development, City
of Delta Junction, testified by teleconference. Since he
assumed the job in September 1999, his job has been to move
forward with the re-use of the surplus area of Fort Greely,
including construction of the prison authorized by HB 53. The
city has undertaken a financial feasibility study on using
existing buildings at Fort Greely, as anticipated by HB 53.
Although the study is still in draft form, the latest revision
(dated February 8, 2001) indicates that using those buildings
for the prison is financially unfeasible.
MR. HALGREN said, "I hate to use terms like 'jerked around,' but
that's sort of the feeling I've gotten. I've been pulling my
hair out." In September 1999, after the lawsuit started, the
city was still being told by the military that a prison and a
National Missile Defense (NMD) installation could co-exist at
Fort Greely. By December of 1999, city officials "were having
strong suspicions that that might not be true." he said. In
March of 2000, the city was awarded funding from the Department
of Defense for a financial feasibility study to look at both the
proposed prison footprint (which includes the buildings) and raw
land on Fort Greely. In April of 2000, funding for studying use
of the footprint was "deferred" by the Department of Defense.
That department stopped any funding for any studies using the
existing facilities at Fort Greely in May 2000. The city since
has learned that in March of 2000, the NMD folks decided to use
the prison footprint buildings. That information came in
testimony in the lawsuit from a representative of the United
States Army Corps of Engineers in Alaska. Everybody is waiting
for the President to make a decision [about the location of NMD
facilities, potentially in Alaska], Mr. Halgren said.
CHAIR COGHILL asked if the HB 53 prison plan "just wouldn't work
in Delta because of the existing building issue. Is that true?"
MR. HALGREN replied, "That's what our study indicates."
CHAIR COGHILL explained that HB 159 is taking the language [of
HB 53] and moving it to Kenai under a little different scenario.
He asked Mr. Halgren, "Do you object to HB 149 as it is
written"?
MR. HALGREN replied, "HB 149 as written ... takes away Delta's
opportunity to move forward on a prison."
CHAIR COGHILL observed that it seems like the Fort Greely site
is not going to work, and for the committee to make a clear
policy decision, it needs to know if Delta Junction needs a
separate statutory provision for a prison in Delta.
MR. HALGREN pointed out that HB 53 requires Delta Junction to
re-use existing buildings on Fort Greely. It does not allow
them to look into putting a prison on raw land. "You're
absolutely correct," he told Chair Coghill. "House Bill 53
needs to change."
CHAIR COGHILL explained that the committee is looking at the
Kenai issue separately from the Delta issue, knowing full well
that the Delta issue would require another statutory fix. So HB
149 is not meant to disparage Delta so much as to move along
with prison-building. "Do you see it that way?" he asked Mr.
Halgren.
MR. HALGREN replied, "I do see it that way, however, Delta has a
strong feeling that there should be a level playing field.
House Bill 149 is going to offer Kenai the opportunity to build
a prison on raw land, an option that Delta Junction has not been
given, he pointed out.
Number 1146
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON requested clarification of who was
providing the land for the prison in Kenai.
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT explained that the deal for the land in
Kenai has not yet been made. The borough has passed a
resolution supporting efforts to reach an agreement to use Kenai
Native Association land. He said he did not know the
particulars about the negotiations.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said, "We aren't doing anything
legislatively to provide land down there. I guess what I'm
getting at is that the playing field's kind of level. They
could have the same things down there, couldn't they?"
CHAIR COGHILL noted that Delta Junction had become entangled in
a lawsuit and that "there were other issues."
Number 1227
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said HB 53 was drafted in a way that did
not give Delta Junction the option to do anything other than re-
use existing facilities. For them to have the same
opportunities that are being given to Kenai by HB 149, there
would have to be another piece of legislation. "Quite frankly,
I wouldn't oppose that," she said.
CHAIR COGHILL said he agreed and thinks that is an issue. House
Bill 149 is not intended to give one community preference over
another; "it's just that Kenai has done some of the homework
that Delta was never afforded the opportunity to do," he said.
"I think Pete Halgren makes a good point: it hurts."
Number 1288
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES expressed curiosity about why the Kenai
proposal did not go through a statewide process. "Did the rest
of the state have the opportunity to propose something for a
private prison?" he asked.
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT said he did not know.
CHAIR COGHILL said he would like to let those in Delta Junction
finish their testimony before going into committee discussion.
Number 1263
SUSAN KEMP, City Council Member, City of Delta Junction,
testified by teleconference. She commented that she felt HB 149
is going to eliminate Delta Junction's chances to be able to
proceed with something on which they have been working for a
long time. As she understands HB 149, it eliminates HB 53. If
this opportunity is afforded to Kenai, she would like to see the
state step in and give Delta Junction some help in negotiating a
settlement in the lawsuit. "We sort of feel like we've been
hung out here to dry, and we're not in a position to be able to
come up with a large sum of money to settle this lawsuit," she
said. "In fact, we've never been in a position where we could
even afford to be in a lawsuit. We'd certainly like to see some
consideration given for getting some kind of a settlement."
Number 1460
NAT GOOD, City Council Member, City of Delta Junction, testified
by teleconference. He reiterated that if HB 149 is going to
eliminate HB 53, then he believes the state needs to clear all
issues remaining on HB 53, including Delta Junction's lawsuit.
It is a result of HB 53 as are some other problems the City of
Delta Junction now has. "We have done everything we can," he
said.
MR. GOOD continued:
BRAC [the Department of Defense Base Realignment and
Closure Commission] has not allowed us ... to have any
buildings whatsoever out there [at Fort Greely]. If
we took any building on post and attempted [to use] it
in any way, BRAC rules mean that if they chose to take
the buildings back, we need to restore the buildings
to their original condition. So for us to do anything
with any buildings out there would cause serious
potential problems for us. In order to do anything
with bonding, we ... [have] to get title to the land,
so it's just impossible to do any construction until
we have title to the land, and that simply hasn't been
possible. Bonding simply can't be done.
Number 1540
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she thought the legislature had done
everything it could do to make the HB 53 prison project work.
It looks to her, as an outsider, "that an awful lot of your
trauma that you're having there is because of a conflict within
your community," she observed. "Is that correct or not?"
Number 1581
MR. GOOD acknowledged that there has been a conflict within the
community. However, the city council has continued forward with
work on HB 53, doing what it could with Fort Greely, "which, as
it turned out, has been a very educational experience for us,"
he said. "There hasn't been very much that we in reality could
do."
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if in the unlikely event that the
Fort Greely site became available for prison "is there still
something holding you up?"
MR. GOOD said Delta Junction needs to have actual ownership of
any building or land in order to issue bonds to construct
anything there. "Ownership is the real roadblock here," he
said.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted that she had worked intently on HB
53, and recalled that one of the reasons the Fort Greely site
was chosen was because it had buildings that could be used,
thereby saving money. "Are you saying that that is not a
possibility any more?" she asked.
MR. GOOD explained that it has turned out to be impossible for
Delta Junction to get the Fort Greely buildings. The whole BRAC
process has been developing over the years during which the city
has been involved with it. "At this point, can we do anything
with anything out there? I have to answer no," he said.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said, "I honestly in my heart believe ...
that we owe you something, not what you're asking for, but some
provision to be able to get whole on this if you can. But a lot
of the problems that you've had are not necessarily our fault."
From her perspective, she said, it appears that conflict in the
community has been a complicating factor, notwithstanding the
problem of being unable to get the title to the facility. "If
we were to pass a piece of legislation which ... gave you the
same authorization you had before, but did not require you to
put [the prison] on Fort Greely, what would you do?" she asked.
Number 1770
MR. HALGREN replied, "We could move forward at this point to
finish up our financial feasibility study. The city council met
last week and authorized ...[use of] limited funds to
investigate the financial feasibility of a raw land prison in
the Delta area .... If we were off Fort Greely, we would not
have any of the BRAC transfer problems ... [and] it would turn
out to be a pure financial feasibility question.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked, "But that doesn't give you any land
to do it on, does it?"
MR. HALGREN replied, "No it doesn't, but land in the Delta area
is dirt cheap." [Laughter.] "We have been looking at land for
a new areawide landfill, and land is running approximately
$1,000 an acre or less.
Number 1864
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON recalled that the Delta prison project did
not go out for statewide bid because it appeared that the
military base at Fort Greely was going to be closed, and the
prison project was a way for the state to help Delta Junction
offset the consequent economic devastation. She asked Mr.
Halgren the status of the military there now.
MR. HALGREN said the official status of the military is that
Fort Greely is continuing its final downsizing to fewer than 100
people, including both military and civilians, by July 2001.
The economy in the area is in "a world of hurt."
Number 1927
REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked if in all the discussion with Allvest
concerning the lawsuit, had there been any talk about another
site.
MR. HALGREN said that in the course of the settlement
discussions last year, there had been some talk about an off-
base site. However, those discussions ended in June when a
letter from Senator Jerry Ward was received by Delta Junction's
funding agency. The letter had said, "A plan to build a new
prison on an alternative site will require the approval of the
Alaska legislature as well as the governor. I can assure you
that such approval will not be forthcoming."
Number 1998
CHAIR COGHILL observed that there appears to be need for a
"statutory fix," but didn't know if that was germane to HB 149.
"The only connection is ... House Bill 53, and at this point, HB
53 is not workable in Delta."
Number 2017
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said:
House Bill 53 is not workable as it is currently
written. This piece of legislation [HB 149] does away
with HB 53. And I'm very in favor of Kenai being able
to go forward with this, but I think we do owe
something to Delta Junction, and I think that maybe we
ought to give them some more opportunities ... There's
plenty of room for more than one prison.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES voiced concern that building a prison may
not be possible in Delta Junction because of conflict within
that community. However, she thought Delta Junction should be
given the opportunity to try if those there want to do so. The
community has a budget of about $150,000 a year, "and they've
been spending money up the ying-yang, and ... they're in a
situation to which we helped to contribute." She said she is
eager to move HB 149 forward but feels "like we would be dumping
them [Delta Junction] if we don't make some provision in this
bill to allow them to do something that they can't currently do
to get themselves out of this ... problem that they have." She
said she would like to get some legal advice about the
legislature's responsibility and how the legislature could help
Delta Junction without keeping Kenai from going ahead.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said, "I think it's very unfortunate ...
for the senator from this area [Kenai] to make such damning
comments to people when he's only one vote out of 60, and I'm
not pleased with that at all..." But, she continued, she did
not want that to reflect badly upon the Kenai folks'
application, which she thinks is a good one; she is very
impressed with the participation of the Native community in
Kenai, and she thinks it provides the opportunity for cultural
input into the facility that is going to be good for the state.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES closed by saying she thinks the legislature
still owes something to Delta Junction and needs to figure out
what that is.
Number 2230
CHAIR COGHILL agreed and said he would be willing to work on
that. He then returned attention to the question Representative
Hayes had raised earlier.
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES said he wondered why the proposal for a
private prison had not gone through a statewide selection
process.
MARGOT KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the
Commissioner, Department of Corrections, explained that HB 53
was site-specific. It said the prison had to use the existing
facilities at Fort Greely. House Bill 149 also is site-
specific. It says the prison would be in Kenai. Theoretically
one could do a statewide request for proposals and compare
proposals from all of the interested communities, but that is
possible only if there is authority granted to do so, and that
authority comes from the legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT said he did not think there was anything
to keep any other area from coming to the legislature with a
proposal. He called it "forward thinking" that Kenai came
forward and said, "We see we have a problem; we feel that we can
fill the need." That was part of the reason he introduced HB
149.
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES commended Kenai for that, but said he had a
problem with the letter sent by the senator from Kenai.
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT emphasized that there is interest in the
Kenai area not only in bringing Alaska prisoners home, but also
keeping Alaskans working.
CHAIR COGHILL noted that both Kenai and Delta had put a lot of
work into their proposals, and that he wanted to avoid pitting
one community against another.
Number 2449
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES spoke of the serious need for corrections
space. Part of problem is that nobody wants to have a prison in
his or her back yard. She says she thinks a community that
wants to build a prison should be given every opportunity to do
so.
CHAIR COGHILL summarized that the committee's policy call on HB
149 is to allow Kenai to go forward, but not to cut off Delta
Junction. "If we're going to end up doing that, I want to make
sure that we can hold them [Delta Junction] harmless to the
point where they can come up with another proposal, so I'm
interested in language to that effect," he said.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE said he was also interested in getting the
legal advice that Representative James had suggested.
Number 2586
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON suggested additional research on the
increased military activity that may be coming into the Delta
Junction area.
Number 2660
RICHARD VAN HATTEN, President, Correctional Officers Bargaining
Unit, Public Safety Employees Association, who is employed as a
correctional officer at Wildwood Correctional Center, came
forward to testify. He said there is a small and growing group
of people on the Kenai Peninsula who do not wish to have a
private prison. There also are some people who do not want the
Kenai Borough to assume an $80 million to $120 million revenue
bond.
MR. VAN HATTEN said he objects to private prisons in general
because of "the danger that has been demonstrated nationwide."
He said private prisons have a 40 percent rate of staff
turnover, and that prisons need experienced staff. A recent
five-year study in California showed that there was a 20 percent
higher escape rate from private prisons than from state-operated
ones. There is a 66 percent greater incidence of prisoner-to-
prisoner violence and a 50 percent greater incidence of
prisoner-to-staff violence in private prisons, he said. There
is a resolution now before Congress that would eliminate any
federal use of private prison facilities. That bill also
disqualifies from federal grants anyone who contracts for
private housing of prisoners. He named six states that he said
are eliminating either existing or future contracts with private
prisons and are "building state facilities as quickly as they
can."
MR. VAN HATTEN said he believes the Alaska Department of
Corrections "can do it better than anybody else, and ... can
also do it less expensively than the private prisons will cost
us." He said he is working with others in the Kenai borough
that are opposed to the private prison project.
MR. VAN HATTEN clarified that he was testifying as a private
citizen and not as a representative of the Department of
Corrections.
Number 2896
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked Mr. Van Hatten if he knew anything
about the track record of Cornell Corrections, Inc., as a
private prison operator.
MR. VAN HATTEN said the figures he provided are an average of
all private prison operators, but that he could separate out the
figures for Cornell.
CHAIR COGHILL said he thought that was a question for the Kenai
Peninsula Borough, which had scrutinized proposals from four
different private prison operators.
Number 2966
CHAIR COGHILL then said that he sees the question of "how to
help Delta get de-tangled" as a primary issue, but does not know
the answer to that.
TAPE 01-22, SIDE B
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES said he thought there was some language in
HB 149 that might put the state at some financial risk, and he
wondered why the language in HB 149 is not the same as it had
been in HB 53.
CHAIR COGHILL referred to question to Representative Chenault,
who asked that it be re-stated.
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES said he was curious why the language in HB
149 is different from the language used in authorizing the
Anchorage jail project. His concern was that those changes
might cause the state financial difficulty if the project group
were to pull out.
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT said he was unable to answer that
question.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES volunteered that the terms and agreements
for the Anchorage jail were not generic ones, but had been
negotiated specific to the project there. She recalled a great
deal of negotiation about it when HB 53 was being passed. She
was not involved in those negotiations, but thinks that may be
why there is a difference.
CHAIR COGHILL observed that to answer Representative Hayes'
question would require looking into the history of HB 53, which
included both the Anchorage jail and the Delta Junction prison
projects.
Number 2862
KEVIN WYATT, of Homer, testified by teleconference. He said it
was interesting to hear all the conflicts swirling around the
Delta Junction question. He said the only point of contention
on the Kenai Peninsula "is not that we don't want a prison in
our back yard; it's not that we don't think the space is needed
or anything like that. The only point of contention ... is that
this is going to be run by a private entity. That's when the
discussion gets interesting and vigorous, to say the least."
MR. WYATT continued, "I think the incarceration and
rehabilitation of people who break the law is a very legitimate
function and responsibility of the State of Alaska, and there is
no reason why the state itself shouldn't build and run this
prison." He said he would be "all in favor of it wherever it
is," and that the site on the Kenai Peninsula is perfect. "The
fly in the ointment is the private versus public [issue]," he
reiterated. "This is a function of public government, and
that's the point I want to make."
Number 2780
CHAIR COGHILL observed that there were legal questions remaining
and that the committee needed to dig into the history of HB 53.
He announced his intention to appoint a subcommittee to look
into those issues, stating that he wanted to let the Kenai
prison project proceed but also wanted to take care of Delta
Junction. There being no other people who wished to testify, he
closed public comment on HB 149.
CHAIR COGHILL asked Representative James to chair the
subcommittee and Representatives Hayes and Fate to join her in
serving on it. The committee was asked to report back to the
full committee on March 20.
CHAIR COGHILL declared a brief at-ease at 9:00 a.m. He called
the meeting back to order at 9:01 a.m.
CHAIR COGHILL announced that he had scheduled one hour for
further discussion of HB 149, to begin at 9 a.m. Tuesday, March
20. He said it was his intention to move the bill from
committee then.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES issued an open invitation to anyone who
wished to attend the subcommittee meeting. [HB 149 was HEARD
AND HELD.]
Number 2527
CHAIR COGHILL declared an at-ease beginning at 9:03 a.m. He
called the meeting back to order at 9:10 a.m.
CONFIRMATION HEARINGS
Department of Administration
CHAIR COGHILL announced that the committee would consider the
appointment of Jim Duncan as Commissioner, Department of
Administration.
Number 2508
JIM DUNCAN, Commissioner Appointee, Department of
Administration, joined the committee at the table. He noted
that committee members had copies of his resume detailing past
experience. He quickly reviewed his most recent work history in
the Department of Administration, which he joined in February
1999 as a special assistant whose main duties were to oversee
the negotiation of labor contracts with 12 public employee
unions. In July 2000, he was appointed deputy commissioner with
responsibility for overseeing several divisions within the
department. At the end of August 2000, he was appointed
commissioner.
MR. DUNCAN recalled that in committee meetings earlier in the
session, he had given an overview of the Department of
Administration and the major initiatives underway at this time.
He said he thinks his philosophy is clear that the Department of
Administration needs to fulfill the duties and the obligations
required by statute in the most efficient and effective way
possible. He said his goal is to ensure that is done and to
also ensure that the department is responsive to those it
serves. That includes state agencies with which it interacts
and, of course, consumers, through a variety of programs that
the department delivers. He said he thought the department was
well on its way to doing that, and volunteered to answer any
questions the committee might have.
Number 2406
CHAIR COGHILL thanked Mr. Duncan for his years of public
service, previously as a member of the legislature and now in
the administration. He asked his perspective on the movement of
policy.
MR. DUNCAN said it had been a very interesting learning
experience for him. After 12 years in the House and another 12
years in the Senate, he understood the legislative branch of
government and the legislative process pretty well. He thought
he also understood the executive side of government pretty well,
but he learned quickly that there is a whole new approach to
delivering programs and services when one is charged with
responsibility of overseeing a number of programs and services
and divisions. It had given him not only a broader but a whole
different perspective on how to approach issues and deal with
problems, he said. "I guess if I had any recommendation to a
legislator, it would be [to] spend some time in the executive
branch also because it broadens your perspective, gives you a
whole different ... background and feeling for what needs to be
done, and really is beneficial. It's been a challenge for me,"
he said.
Number 2282
CHAIR COGHILL asked Mr. Duncan what his vision is for the
Department of Administration.
MR. DUNCAN said he did not see it as his role to shake the
foundations of the department or of state government. He thinks
his role is to ensure that the department effectively and
efficiently delivers the programs and services it is required to
deliver, and to continue to explore ways to deliver those more
efficiently and more effectively.
Number 2173
HAROLD HEINZE, of Anchorage, testified by teleconference. He
said he would like to understand Mr. Duncan's views related to
Alaska hire and contracting with Alaska companies for state-
funded work related to North Slope gas development. He said he
is past president of Arco Alaska and served as commissioner of
natural resources in the Hickel administration, so has a good
understanding of the broad public policy responsibilities of a
commissioner as well as the importance of the confirmation
responsibility of the legislature. He is a self-employed
consultant and in November 2000 responded to a request for
proposal issued by the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation
Commission (AOGCC), which is part of the Department of
Administration. The proposal was the low bid, and despite his
being qualified and responsive, the work was awarded to a
Californian. It seems to him that the state would want to
demonstrate to the private sector positive rather than negative
examples of its expectations on Alaska hire. The Department of
Administration provides the leadership throughout the state
government on issues related to hiring and contracting. He
asked the committee to give Mr. Duncan a chance on the record to
express his views regarding Mr. Heinze contracting experience.
Number 1980
MR. DUNCAN first explained that the AOGCC is located in the
Department of Administration for administrative purposes only.
"We provide administrative support, but we do nothing more than
that with AOGCC," he said. The AOGCC commissioners are
appointed by the governor and confirmed by the legislature, so
the commission is independent of the Department of
Administration. The AOGCC follows the procurement policy of the
State of Alaska and the regulations set out by the commissioner
of Administration. However, the commissioner does not review
their requests for proposals or approve them in any way. "The
only time I'd become involved in that process is if there was an
appeal of the process by one of the losing bidders," he said.
The appeal would come to me as commissioner of administration to
rule upon. There was no protest or appeal in this case that I'm
aware of, so I was not even aware of this consultant contract."
MR. DUNCAN then responded to three questions Mr. Heinze had
asked. He said it is important to use Alaska hires and
contractors; that the state, indeed, should set an example to
the greatest extent possible related to Alaska hire and use of
Alaska contractors; and no, the Department of Administration
does not have any leadership role in Alaskanizing the state's
gas development work. The governor has appointed a gas sub-
cabinet, and the commissioner of administration does not serve
on it and does not have a direct role in the gas development
work.
Number 1766
CHAIR COGHILL asked Mr. Heinze if he had appealed the selection
process.
MR. HEINZE said he had sought and received some background
information on the decision, found a number of errors, and
called those to the attention of the procurement officer. That
did not change the decision, he said. He decided at that point
not to appeal. He explained that his concern in raising the
question is not to change that decision "but that the state has
put itself in a very bad position to influence very big
decisions."
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES asked if a motion was in order.
CHAIR COGHILL said that was not necessary, but recommended to
the committee that it forward its approval of the commissioner's
appointment to the full body. He suggested forwarding several
appointments, including Mr. Duncan's, on one piece of paper.
[CONFIRMATION ADVANCED.]
Alaska Public Offices Commission
Number 1528
MARK HANDLEY, Appointee, Alaska Public Offices Commission
(APOC), came forward to testify. He said one of his goals, as a
commissioner is to try to make the APOC process less
intimidating and less difficult for candidates and contributors
while at the same time enforcing the law even-handedly and
firmly.
CHAIR COGHILL asked if he anticipated any major policy changes
for APOC in the next two years.
MR. HANDLEY said he did not. APOC just hired a new executive
director, and the selection of Brooke Miles is a reflection of
the commission's view that it needs to hold the course and build
on what it has done. APOC needs to see how the new regulations
work and whether they create any unanticipated problems for
candidates and members of the public and maybe do some fine-
tuning.
CHAIR COGHILL observed that an interesting issue arose in the
last election with Mr. Lindauer [a gubernatorial candidate].
There were some unfortunate timetable issues, APOC was right in
the middle of that, and, unfortunately, the outcome of the
election was significantly affected, he said. "Would you do
anything differently?" he asked. "Are there any policy changes
needed because of that?"
MR. HANDLEY explained that he had not been a member of the
commission at that time, but as a member of the public following
the unfolding scenario, his impression was that the commission
"didn't exactly cover itself with glory." He said he thinks the
commission was caught by surprise by an unusual set of
circumstances. Most people can't finance a campaign out of
their own pockets, so they are reporting and things come to
light a lot earlier than they do when someone asserts that he or
she is going to be financing the campaign out of pocket.
There's not a lot that the APOC statutes and regulations give
the commission as far as tools to deal with that, he said. "I
think the commission, myself included, would be hesitant to make
any changes without direction from the legislature," he stated.
If the legislature is concerned, one suggestion might be to have
some kind of increased reporting requirements for individuals
who are going to contribute more than a certain amount to their
own campaigns. That additional reporting might include
disclosure of their tax returns or of sources of income. That
would give an opposing candidate the opportunity to press the
issue if he or she thought those funds were being channeled in
from illegal sources. But he does not think the present
statutes give APOC the authority to do that.
CHAIR COGHILL noted that the House State Affairs Standing
Committee might have to deal with that issue. He also observed
that the committee was losing its quorum due to conflicting
commitments, but that he intended to continue the hearing and
pass the record on to the members. [CONFIRMATION ADVANCED]
Human Rights Commission
Number 1111
JUDGE ROY MADSEN, of Kodiak, testified by teleconference as
appointee to the Human Right Commission. Judge Madsen explained
that he retired from the Superior Court bench in 1990 and has
since been involved in community activities. One of those is
the multicultural forum in Kodiak and another was the Supreme
Court committee concerning fairness and access. A friend
suggested that there was a position available on the Human
Rights Commission and asked if he would be interested in
serving. He then received a call from the governor's office,
and the Human Rights commission "sounded like something that fit
in with in with the kind of things that I've been involved in
since my retirement," he said. He was struck by the
professionalism of the commission staff and the longevity of
their service, and by the professionalism of the board. He has
had one case assigned to him for review, and he looks forward to
further work with the commission.
CHAIR COGHILL noted that the term of the appointment runs
through January 31, 2003. He asked Judge Madsen if he had
encountered any surprises as he began to look at the duties of
the commission.
JUDGE MADSEN didn't think there had been any surprises.
CHAIR COGHILL noted that the job involves handling a great deal
of sensitive information. He asked for more information about
Judge Madsen's recent activities.
JUDGE MADSEN described the inception of a multicultural forum in
Kodiak three years ago. He explained that there are many ethnic
groups in Kodiak including Filipino, Korean, Vietnamese,
Laotian, African-American, Jamaican, Samoan, and Hispanic people
from several different countries. The forum includes
representatives of the groups and sponsors different activities
including a multi-cultural celebration of the Fourth of July,
several ethnic dance groups, and food festivals. Currently, the
forum is staging a benefit for Salvadorian earthquake victims.
CHAIR COGHILL commended the celebration of diversity while
maintaining community unity. He asked what Judge Madsen thought
about the timeliness of decisions by the Human Rights
Commission. "Are we doing well there?" he asked.
JUDGE MADSEN said there had been problems in the past but he
thinks those problems have been addressed and that the
commission intends to keep on top in the future.
CHAIR COGHILL said he was going to pass on to the full body a
recommendation for Judge Madsen's confirmation. [CONFIRMATION
ADVANCED]
ADJOURNMENT
Number 0222
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:43
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|