03/22/2001 08:05 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 22, 2001
8:05 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative John Coghill, Chair
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Hugh Fate
Representative Gary Stevens
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Harry Crawford
Representative Joe Hayes
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARINGS:
Alaska Public Offices Commission
John Dapcevich
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
Personnel Board
Ronald Otte
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 2
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to the duration of regular sessions of the legislature
and to a biennial state budget.
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 1
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of
Alaska relating to the duration of a regular session.
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 3
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to terms of legislators, to meetings of legislative
committees, and to the length of regular sessions of the
legislature.
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 5
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of
Alaska relating to the duration of a regular session.
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 162
"An Act relating to absences from the state under the longevity
bonus program."
- MOVED HB 162 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 177
"An Act placing certain special interest organizations within
the definition of 'group' for purposes of Alaska's campaign
finance statutes; providing a contingent amendment to take
effect in case subjecting these organizations to all of the
statutory requirements pertaining to groups is held by a court
to be unconstitutional; requiring certain organizations to
disclose contributions made to them and expenditures made by
them; requiring disclosure of the true source of campaign
contributions; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 177(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HJR 2
SHORT TITLE:BIENNIAL STATE BUDGET
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)MURKOWSKI
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/08/01 0018 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 12/29/00
01/08/01 0018 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/08/01 0018 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
01/08/01 0018 (H) REFERRED TO STATE AFFAIRS
03/22/01 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HJR 1
SHORT TITLE:CONST AM: 90 DAY LEGISLATIVE SESSION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)ROKEBERG
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/08/01 0018 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 12/29/00
01/08/01 0018 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/08/01 0018 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
01/08/01 0018 (H) REFERRED TO STATE AFFAIRS
02/28/01 0472 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KERTTULA
03/22/01 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HJR 3
SHORT TITLE:CONST AM: SESSION LIMIT/INTERIM COMMITTE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)HALCRO
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/08/01 0018 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 12/29/00
01/08/01 0018 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/08/01 0019 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
01/08/01 0019 (H) REFERRED TO STATE AFFAIRS
03/22/01 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HJR 5
SHORT TITLE:CONST AM: 90 DAY LEGISLATIVE SESSION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)LANCASTER
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/08/01 0019 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 12/29/00
01/08/01 0019 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/08/01 0019 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
01/08/01 0019 (H) REFERRED TO STATE AFFAIRS
03/22/01 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 162
SHORT TITLE:ABSENCES UNDER LONGEVITY BONUS
SPONSOR(S): HEALTH, EDUCATION & SOCIAL
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/09/01 0515 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/09/01 0515 (H) STA, FIN
03/22/01 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 177
SHORT TITLE:CAMPAIGN FINANCE: CONTRIB/DISCLOS/GROUPS
SPONSOR(S): RLS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/12/01 0543 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/12/01 0543 (H) STA, JUD
03/22/01 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
JOHN DAPCEVICH, Appointee
Alaska Public Offices Commission
3758 Glacier Avenue
Juneau, Alaska 99802
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to Alaska Public
Offices Commission.
RONALD OTTE, Appointee
Personnel Board
2750 Greenscreek Circle
Anchorage, Alaska 99516
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to Personnel Board.
REPRESENTATIVE LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 406
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HJR 2.
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 118
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HJR 1.
KEVIN HAND, Staff to Representative Andrew Halcro
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 414
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of Representative
Andrew Halcro, sponsor of HJR 3.
REPRESENTATIVE KEN LANCASTER
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 421
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HJR 5.
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 104
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HB 163.
REPRESENTATIVE GRETCHEN GUESS
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 112
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HB 163.
ALLISON ELGEE, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Administration
P.O. Box 110200
Juneau, Alaska 88911-0200
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke to the fiscal note for HB 162.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 204
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HB 177.
BROOKE MILES, Director
Public Offices Commission
Department of Administration
2221 E. Northern Lights, Room 128
Anchorage, Alaska 99508-4149
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 177.
HUGH BROWN III, Volunteer
Alaska Conservation Voters
4314 Penguin, Number 2
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 177.
STEVE CONN, Executive Director
Alaska Public Interest Research Group
P.O. Box 101093
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 177.
PAMELA LaBOLLE, President
Alaska State Chamber of Commerce
217 Second Street, Number 201
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 177.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-27, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR JOHN COGHILL called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:05 a.m. Representatives
Coghill, Fate, Stevens, Crawford, and Hayes were present at the
call to order. Representatives James and Wilson arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
Number 0215
CHAIR COGHILL announced that the first order of business would
be confirmation hearings for appointees to the Alaska Public
Offices Commission and the Personnel Board.
CONFIRMATION HEARINGS:
Alaska Public Offices Commission
Number 0278
JOHN DAPCEVICH, Appointee to the Alaska Public Offices
Commission, came forward to testify. He had forwarded a copy of
his resume to the committee in advance.
CHAIR COGHILL began by thanking Mr. Dapcevich for his long
service to Alaska.
MR. DAPCEVICH introduced himself as a 72-year resident of Alaska
who has served in many elected official capacities including six
terms as mayor of Sitka an has served every elected governor on
some board, commission, or committee. He currently is on the
Pioneer Homes Advisory Board. He is a veteran of World War II
and the Korean War.
CHAIR COGHILL asked about his appointment to the Alaska Public
Offices Commission.
MR. DAPCEVICH explained that the Democratic Party had wanted a
representative from Southeast Alaska and asked him to serve
because of his background and understanding the law as a
consequence of having had to abide by it for many years.
Number 0382
CHAIR COGHILL recalled the timing problems the state had faced
in the last gubernatorial election. He asked Mr. Dapcevich if
he foresaw any changes that might or should be made because of
that.
MR. DAPCEVICH said he thought APOC needed to have tighter
control and that the APOC staff has to do the homework for the
members to make sure that candidates for office are clean as far
as the law is concerned and abide by the law. He does not think
any exceptions should be made. He remembered making a minor
mistake that cost him $10, and said the minor things should be
treated as what they are, as honest mistakes. But the
deliberate or serious infractions of the law definitely should
be dealt with "severely and harshly" because it is embarrassing
to elected officials when somebody gets away with an infraction
and the people see it as the "good old boy system," or "politics
as usual," he said.
Number 0544
REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked if Mr. Dapcevich anticipated making
any sweeping changes.
MR. DAPCEVICH replied, "Not at all. I plan on seeing how the
law works first." He noted that he had been on the other side
of campaign law, and now wants to look at it from the inside to
see if it is meeting the requirements that the legislature wants
it to meet.
Number 0573
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS noted that Mr. Dapcevich has a great
history of service to the state. He asked him to describe the
organization and operation of APOC.
MR. DAPCEVICH said the commission meets three times a year, once
every three months, and usually in Anchorage. The members
include two Democrats, two Republicans, and one nonpartisan.
Number 0640
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Mr. Dapcevich to describe his
attitude toward elected officials. "Do you think they are
generally honest and sincere or do you think that they have a
tendency to be sneaky?" she asked.
MR. DAPCEVICH said in working with members of the legislature
for many years, he has found in almost every instance that they
are very respectable. He noted that he once had run for the
legislature himself (losing to Senator Robin Taylor), "and I
wouldn't want to become part of you if you were sleazy."
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES explained that what prompted her question
was something she has felt from the public in general. When she
was first running, everybody was excited and thought she was a
nice person, but after she was elected, it was as if she had
"jumped over a fence of some sort" and become suspect. She
expressed concern that "once we get down here, there's the
attitude [on the part of ]the general public ...[that] we're not
trustworthy any more."
MR. DAPCEVICH told her that when he served on the Alaska
Statehood Commission, there were 2.5 years of hearings
throughout Alaska. He found from that testimony "that there is
a large voice out there that doesn't like politicians, period;
doesn't trust them, thinks they're all crooks -- but I'm surely
not one of them...," neither one of the crooks nor one of the
critics.
CHAIR COGHILL observed that APOC was set up to provide
accountability. When he began filling out the APOC forms as a
candidate running for the legislature, he felt like he was a
criminal under scrutiny. The degree of acountability to that
board is very high, he said. "I think that's one of the things
that we'd like to voice to you who are now going to be a member
of the board."
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she was impressed by Mr. Dapcevich's
response and agrees that it is just a few people in public
office who are suspect. She voiced concern that focusing on the
little mistakes perpetuates distrust, and said she thinks that
APOC and the media could help that siutation. A lot of good
people don't want to run for office just because they don't want
to be put in front of this controversy, she said.
MR. DAPCEVICH said the good-thinking people who really care
about good government know we make lots of mistakes, and it is
fine to let APOC staff take care of the little things. It is
the APOC board's job to deal with the serious things like the
Lindauer campaign to show that "we don't want that in our
government."
Number 1069
REPRESENTATIVE FATE said in the Lindauer instance, it seemed to
him that there was a lot of delay. "There were a lot of things
that were really hanging on the decision of APOC and that
decision never came down," he said. "And so do you think that
you might want to speed up the process a little bit, especially
where important decisions depend on the outcome of your
deliberations?"
MR. DAPCEVICH said he would like to see the process speed up,
adding that he was known as having the fastest in the West when
he was mayor of Sitka. He does not like unnecessary delay or
backlogs of work he said; however, "you have to get all your
facts and sometimes it takes [your investigators] time to get
the facts."
CHAIR COGHILL thanked Mr. Dapcevich for coming before the
committee and commented on his excellent credentials for the
position.
Number 1169
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES recommended that the House State Affairs
Standing Committee forward the recommendation to confirm Mr.
Dapcevich's appointment to the Alaska Public Offices Commission.
There being no objection, the confirmation was advanced.
[CONFIRMATION ADVANCED]
CHAIR COGHILL declared a brief at-ease at 8:20 a.m. The meeting
was called back to order at 8:32 a.m.
Personnel Board
Number 1446
RONALD OTTE, appointee to the Personnel Board, testified by
teleconference.
CHAIR COGHILL opened the hearing by asking Mr. Otte what he
thought he might bring to the Personnel Board.
MR. OTTE noted that he has been involved in government work for
most of his professional career. For the past 20 years, he has
held management positions with law enforcement agencies, "which
oftentimes, I think, present some of the most challenging
personnel kinds of issues." I am fairly familiar with the
personnel process both from a management and from the labor
side. I think I have a pretty good balanced perspective that I
could bring to the table and I really enjoy public service."
CHAIR COGHILL thanked Mr. Otte for his service in Alaska.
Number 1548
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said, "First of all, Ron, we miss seeing
your face around here."
MR. OTTE replied, "I didn't think I'd ever say this,
Representative James, but I really miss you guys a lot too."
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said her background in business has led her
to the conclusion that an employee's top priority is to be
appreciated and also to feel like he or she is part of a team
and in the know. She asked Mr. Otte to comment on that
assessment.
MR. OTTE said he concurred and supported her views. He
mentioned that one of his greatest assets over the years has
been his respect for the work force.
Number 1657
CHAIR COGHILL asked Mr. Otte about his views on things coming up
before the Personnel Board that might affect public policy.
MR. OTTE said he had not yet seen an agenda to give him a good
sense of the kinds of issues coming before the board, and could
not give more than a "hazy" response to the question.
Number 1730
CHAIR COGHILL explained that what prompted his question was a
presentation the State Affairs Committee recently heard on work
force planning. That presentation raised some interesting
points on alignment and on work force review and asset review.
The committee is trying to bring this to the administration, and
although the committee cannot take the lead on it, he sees it on
the horizon.
MR. OTTE said he would love to see it. He characterized himself
as a person who is "always looking for ways to improve what we
do or how we do business." He said he is looking for ways to
improve and streamline the state's work force, and if there are
innovations or ideas out there that need to be considered, those
are the kinds of challenges he would enjoy.
CHAIR COGHILL said he would like the House State Affairs
Committee to get together with the Department of Administration
personnel to see if the committee can be part of that, and he
wanted to give Mr. Otte a "heads up" on that.
CHAIR COGHILL expressed appreciation for Mr. Otte's service to
Alaska.
MR. OTTE said he is the one who owes thanks to the State of
Alaska.
Number 1971
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES recommended that the House State Affairs
Standing Committee forward the recommendation to confirm Mr.
Otte's appointment to the Personnel Board. There being no
objection, the confirmation was advanced. [CONFIRMATION
ADVANCED]
HJR 2-BIENNIAL STATE BUDGET
Number 1892
CHAIR COGHILL announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 2, Proposing amendments to the
Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to the duration of
regular sessions of the legislature and to a biennial state
budget.
Number 1937
REPRESENTATIVE LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska State Legislature, came
forward to testify as sponsor of HJR 2. She said HJR 2 is
different from the other resolutions before the committee that
relate to shortening the length of the legislative session.
House Joint Resolution 2 focuses on a biennial state budget and
provides the added bonus of a shortened session in the second
year.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI noted that the idea of a biennial
budget is not new. The idea has been "floating around" the
state legislature for years. The federal government is
constantly looking at going to a biennial budget process.
Twenty-odd states have either a full biennial budget process or
some mixed version of it. She suggested that the change is
necessary, appropriate, and would allow for greater efficiency.
Number 2000
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI observed that the legislature is now 70
days into the session, and:
All of us have been totally immersed in the budget
process. None of us in this room is sitting on [the]
Finance [Committee], and yet we're all involved in
that process. The agencies have been involved with
the budget nine months out of their productive work
cycles.... We spend so much of our time in the
budgetary process that we don't have the time to do
the oversight .... We've got these great missions and
measures that we've implemented, but how much time do
we actually have to take a look and see is this
working, do we need to do something different ....
Well, I'm here to tell you [that in] the 120 days that
we have, we're not very efficient with the time that
we spend. So what I'm proposing is that during the
... first year of the legislative session, the
governor proposes a two-year budget, we review that,
and sign off on a budget that will have a two-year
cycle.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said that would let legislators spend
the second year of the session on other issues. It now is
impossible to focus on other substantive issues because "we're
interrupted by the budget all the time," she said.
Number 2136
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said several states have phased in a
biennial budget rather than implementing "the whole enchilada at
once," and she thinks a phased process is worth considering.
She suggested that the committee not roll HJR 2 in with other
proposals for shortening the legislative session because the
shortened session is not the focus, but "just a bonus" of HJR 2.
She said the idea of a biennial budget makes good, common sense
and has strong public support.
Number 2188
CHAIR COGHILL said his intent in assigning HJR 2 to the
subcommittee studying similar bills was not intended to thwart
any of those bills, and any one of them that stands alone can be
dealt with separately. He recognized that the biennial budget
is a "stand-alone topic."
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said she understood that the
legislature did not want to "load up the ballot" next year with
a dozen resolutions for the voters to consider. "I think that
you're absolutely right in attempting to do some consolidation
here," she stated.
Number 2254
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she wanted to put it on the record
that she has historically supported the biennial budget as a way
to minimize the effort and maximize the results of the budget
process. However, she thinks a biennial budget is part of a
long-range fiscal plan. Putting the session-shortening bills in
a subcommittee is a good way to discuss those ideas, but she
would prefer that those bills all become options in a long-range
plan. She said she is "not ready to vote on any one of these
until I see how we're going to fund ourselves over the long
term."
CHAIR COGHILL said one of the reasons he wanted to put the bills
in a subcommittee is to begin that discussion. "It is not my
intention to put these into the black hole that they never come
out of," he said, but rather "to try to discover similarities or
dissimilarities and then proceed from there."
Number 2351
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON observed that there are a lot of things
Alaska has that are better than those in the state from which
she came, but the biennial budget process they had there was
much more efficient and gave legislators time to think about a
lot of other things.
HJR 1-CONST AM: 90 DAY LEGISLATIVE SESSION
Number 2439
CHAIR COGHILL announced that the next item of business before
the committee would be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 1, Proposing
an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating
to the duration of a regular session.
Number 2446
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG, Alaska State Legislature, came
forward to testify as sponsor of HJR 1. House Joint Resolution
1 simply shortens via constitutional amendment the session term
from 120 days to 90 days. He said he thinks it is one of the
things the legislature needs to do in terms of legislative
reform. He observed that the legislature now is subject to an
application of Parkinson's Law, which says that work expands to
fill the time available for its completion. "We don't really
get out of the blocks [very] quickly, particularly at the start
of a two-year session," he said.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG then called attention to what he views
as a structural problem under the Uniform Rules that inhibits
the ability to do work on a year-round basis. He noted that he
also has introduced HCR 3, which is a change in the Uniform
Rules to allow standing committees to deal with bills. They
currently can meet during the interim, but they cannot pass a
bill out of the committee and on to another committee of
referral. Making that change would not require a constitutional
amendment. He noted that wording regarding changes in the
Uniform Rules does not need to go before the people for their
approval, but is something the legislature could take action on
itself. He said HCR 3 also allows for electronic voting over
the teleconference lines. You can't really have a shortening of
the session without looking at the ability of the standing
committees to meet in the interim and to be able to conduct
business," he said. "I think that's an important factor and
something that the subcommittee needs to be aware of."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG estimated that HJR 1 would save $1.5
million in per diem costs and would help in recruiting
candidates to serve in the legislature. He thinks the
legislature's work could be done in 90 days. Most Western
states have shorter sessions. He added that Washington and
Oregon [sessions] also are biennial.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG concluded by saying that he does not
think HJR 1 and HJR 2 are compatible to present to voters.
"They are two different concepts," he said. "They have a common
thread of shortening ... the gross number of legislative days
during a two-year session." He said he thought there is less
controversy over a 90-day annual session than there is over a
long session one year and a short one the next.
CHAIR COGHILL asked the subcommittee to consider not only
similarity but also compatibility of the bills assigned to it.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted that he had been very skeptical of
the biennial budget concept, but that he "has sort of warmed up"
to it because he thinks the bureaucracy spends most of its time
budget building instead of running the state.
HJR 3-CONST AM: SESSION LIMIT/INTERIM COMMITTEE
Number 2763
CHAIR COGHILL indicated that the next order of business before
the committee would be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 3, Proposing
amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating
to terms of legislators, to meetings of legislative committees,
and to the length of regular sessions of the legislature.
Number 2788
KEVIN HAND, Staff to Representative Andrew Halcro, Alaska State
Legislature, came forward to testify on behalf of Representative
Halcro, sponsor of HJR 3. He explained that HJR 3 is a
constitutional amendment that would limit the length of the
legislative session to 90 days. Under HJR 3, newly elected
members would be sworn in in mid-December (as opposed to
January), and the session would begin in the second week of
February (instead of in January). One of the main provisions is
the authorization of interim committees, so after members are
sworn in, committees could meet on pre-filed legislation.
MR. HAND said HJR 3 would bring committee meetings to
legislators' home districts so there could be more constituent
contact. It also would allow hearings in the areas affected by
particular legislation. The greater access provided to citizens
would be very beneficial, he said. There is no question but
what it would bring greater efficiency to the legislature in the
use of time in Juneau, he continued. "The legislature is much
like water," he said. "It will fill the space that it is given,
so there is definitely efficiency to be garnered from our
legislative session."
MR. HAND said HJR 3 would foster a so-called citizens'
legislature because uprooting family and careers to come down to
Juneau for 120 days every year has an effect on people's lives
and acts as a deterrent to running for political office.
Projected savings from HJR are about $1.5 million, or about
$30,000 a day for every day the legislature is not in session.
Other states with much larger populations and budgets can do
their legislative work in consistently shorter sessions, some of
them as short as 60 days.
MR. HAND commented on the "proliferation of ideas" with a number
of bills on related topics. He said he thinks the legislature
"may be turning a corner on a time in which some of these ideas
might become feasible."
HJR 5-CONST AM: 90 DAY LEGISLATIVE SESSION
Number 2959
CHAIR COGHILL indicated that the next order of business before
the committee would be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 5, Proposing
an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating
to the duration of a regular session.
Number 2972
REPRESENTATIVE KEN LANCASTER, Alaska State Legislature, came
forward to testify as sponsor of HJR 5. He said he thinks there
are efficiencies to be gained [through it].
TAPE 01-27, SIDE B
Number 0001
REPRESENTATIVE LANCASTER mentioned that he likes some of the
other ideas such as a biennial budget and interim committee
meetings, and said he regards shortening the legislative session
to 90 days as a piece of the long-range fiscal plan to which
Representative James had alluded.
CHAIR COGHILL noted that efficiency is what everyone is seeking.
Number 2943
CHAIR COGHILL asked three committee members to serve on the
subcommittee: Representatives Stevens, Crawford, and Fate. He
asked if any of them would like to refuse the appointment or if
any other members wished to join the committee. Representatives
James and Wilson volunteered. Representative Fate agreed to
chair the subcommittee.
CHAIR COGHILL asked the committee to submit a written report.
He asked them to return with recommendations to the full
committee on Thursday, March 29. He also asked the committee to
meet with the bill sponsors or at least with their staff.
CHAIR COGHILL declared a brief at-ease at 9:58 a.m. The
committee was called back to order after 30 seconds.
HB 162-ABSENCES UNDER LONGEVITY BONUS PROGRAM
Number 2763
CHAIR COGHILL announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 162, "An Act relating to absences from the state
under the longevity bonus program." Representatives Dyson and
Guess came forward to testify as sponsors of HB 162.
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON, Alaska State Legislature, explained
that HB 162 is being sponsored by the House Education and Social
Services Standing Committee. House Bill 162 removes an
inadvertent restriction that makes it difficult for senior
citizens to receive their longevity bonuses while doing such
things as going Outside to visit family, he said. The bill
extends the time they can be Outside from 30 days to 60 days.
In addition, it extends the allowable time for those who take an
unpaid "sabbatical" for medical treatment or education and now
find themselves having to pay for a flight home to Alaska every
90 days so as not to lose their eligibility for the bonus.
Number 2650
REPRESENTATIVE GRETCHEN GUESS, Alaska State Legislature,
explained that the purpose for the first change, extending the
time a person can be gone from 30 to 60 days, is to make it
possible for lower-income seniors to drive Outside to visit
family. The second change extends the allowable sabbatical from
90 days to five years. She explained that a senior who was out
of state more than 60 days would not receive a monthly bonus,
but would remain eligible for the program when he or she
returned to Alaska. Currently, a person has to return after 90
days and receive the bonus for one month before leaving again.
Also, seniors who are out of state for allowable reasons (such
as for medical treatment) now must file burdensome paperwork to
remain Outside for more than 90 days without losing their
eligibility. She said that extending the sabbatical will save
the state money in bonuses now paid those who return and file
for a month's bonus just to maintain their eligibility, and also
by cutting down on eligibility paperwork.
Number 2550
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES declared a conflict of interest, as she and
her husband receive the longevity bonus. Beyond that, she said,
the longevity bonus is a "very touchy" subject to her. Some of
the general public, particularly those who are pioneers of
Alaska who will never receive the bonus [because the program is
being phased out], are unhappy about some other people getting
it. In 1992, 40 percent of the people drawing longevity bonuses
had not been in the state more than three years. She said that
was a result of a court ruling that the state could only require
a year's residency before people qualified.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES recalled that one option considered at that
time was to drop the program altogether; another was to phase it
out and grandfather those who already had qualified. The latter
was done, and the amount the state spends goes down every year
because of the decrease in the number of people drawing the
bonus. Another idea discussed at that time was to make the
bonus means-tested, so that any individual with income over
$60,000 (or $80,000 for a couple) would not be entitled to the
longevity bonus. That brought "huge hue and cry" from those in
the program because it had not been designed as a welfare
program. They also objected to providing financial information
that they felt was private.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she thinks HB 162 will attract "all
sort of amendments" and cautioned that a lot of people
(including some in the legislature) would like to have the
longevity bonus program go away. So she was not enthusiastic
about going forward with HB 162. "However, it does make a lot
of sense," she acknowledged. She concurred that the 30-day
allowable absence is very limiting to seniors who are driving
out of state, but said extending the unpaid sabbatical from 90
days to five years struck her as excessive.
Number 2293
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said he thought Representative James had
very accurately encapsulated the history of the longevity bonus,
which was established by the legislature to reward the people
who had built Alaska and to help "keep our elders here amongst
us" rather than watching them leave to live in cheaper places.
He called it unfortunate that the court ruled that under federal
law, the state could not discriminate against newcomers.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON directed attention to the fiscal note,
explaining that extending the unpaid sabbatical to five years
actually saves money as well as helping to clarify the records.
Number 2153
REPRESENTATIVE FATE declared that he, too, had a conflict of
interest.
Number 2131
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES said he thought HB 162 was a very good
idea. He asked if it had letters of support from any
organizations.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS said sponsors are in the process of
gathering letters of support. She added that she thought there
also is some opposition.
Number 2094
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said he supported HB 162 without
equivocation.
Number 2062
ALLISON ELGEE, Deputy Commissioner, Department of
Administration, came forward to speak to the fiscal note. She
explained that the effects of the two aspects of HB 162 had been
broken out separately. The cost of Section 1, which extends the
allowable absence during which a person could continue to
receive a longevity bonus check from 30 to 60 days, was
estimated at $288,400 based on last year's figures. Yet the
fiscal note is a negative one because Section 2, lengthening the
sabbatical, would save money. In attempting to address that in
the fiscal note, the Department of Administration estimated that
if 10 percent of current recipients were Outside for one month
longer than they are currently allowed, and they were not
receiving a check for that month, the state would save up to
$435,100 a year. She emphasized that those on sabbatical are
not disqualified from the program, but simply suspended during
their absence from the state.
CHAIR COGHILL invited further testimony. There was none.
Number 1892
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES moved to report HB 162 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HOUSE BILL NO. 162, "An Act
relating to absences from the state under the longevity bonus
program" was moved from the House State Affairs Standing
Committee. [HB 162 MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE]
HB 177-CAMPAIGN FINANCE: CONTRIB/DISCLOS/GROUPS
Number 1865
CHAIR COGHILL announced the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 177, "An Act placing certain special interest
organizations within the definition of 'group' for purposes of
Alaska's campaign finance statutes; providing a contingent
amendment to take effect in case subjecting these organizations
to all of the statutory requirements pertaining to groups is
held by a court to be unconstitutional; requiring certain
organizations to disclose contributions made to them and
expenditures made by them; requiring disclosure of the true
source of campaign contributions; and providing for an effective
date." He noted that Representative Kott also had a committee
substitute to offer.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT, Alaska State Legislature, came forward
to testify as sponsor of HB 177.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES moved to adopt the CS for HB 177 [22-
LSO406/P Kurt] as the working document before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT explained that the original HB 177 contained
contingency language. The CS removes the contingency language,
which was not felt to be necessary. That is the only change, he
said.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said HB 177 is a relatively simple piece of
legislation. It does two things. In Section 2, the
"contributor" is defined as "the true source of funds, property,
or service being contributed." This comports with federal law,
he said.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said the language added to Section 3 is
"probably the heart of the matter." It defines "a special
interest organization" as "a person other than an individual
that cannot participate in business activities, does not have
shareholders who have a claim on corporate earnings, and is
independent from the influence of business corporations." This
spells out what a "special interest organization" is and what it
can and cannot do. This provision also comports with federal
law, he said.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said the purpose of HB 177 is to keep
nonprofit organizations like the Alliance, the Resource
Development Council, and "others of that nature" from making
unlimited contributions to political campaigns. They could not
make any greater contribution than $1,000.
Number 1516
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES asked about the motivation for HB 177. He
wondered if the intent was to prevent something that has gone
on.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said he thinks the motivation is primarily
to close a loophole in the law; and whether something has gone
on or not is somewhat irrelevant.
Number 1416
CHAIR COGHILL noted that there was testimony to come from at
least two groups.
Number 1384
BROOKE MILES, Director, Public Offices Commission (APOC),
participated by teleconference. She said she was available to
answer questions and that the commissioner would review HB 177
next week. She thought the CS removing the contingency sections
makes HB 177 a more legible piece of legislation for reviewing.
MS. MILES said the APOC staff anticipates that HB 177 will
result in a proliferation of groups. Under current regulations,
APOC has restricted the definition of "special interest
organization" to not-for-profit corporations and has described a
process by which those corporations can qualify to participate.
Also, she said, although this would mean all these groups could
only give up to $1,000 to a candidate in the form of a direct
contribution, it would not limit independent expenditures or
non-coordinated expenditures.
Number 1256
HUGH BROWN III, Volunteer, Alaska Conservation Voters, came
forward to testify. He said he was concerned about HB 177 and
not certain it was necessary. He liked the CS better than the
bill itself. Alaska Conservation Voters is one of the special
interest groups that participated in the last election. He has
heard some comments that cause him concern, including that
Alaska Conservation voters had a lot of Outside money. But
Outside money can be good for Alaska, he said, noting that oil
money is Outside money. As to closing a loophole in the
campaign laws, he thinks "that if we are doing campaign finance
reform, we should do it across the board," not just
incrementally. As campaign laws are written now, there is a
level playing field. He supports full disclosure, and thinks
the current system works.
MR. BROWN said participating in the election process is a right
everyone has. It discourages him when he sees Alaska
Conservation Voters described as "some extreme Outside group."
He is a 26-year Alaska resident. "I care about clean water. I
care about clean air. I care about development," he said. "I
don't like to be characterized as an Outside extremist."
Number 1008
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she, too, supports full disclosure.
She would rather have full disclosure than limits on
contributions. "That doesn't seem to be an option for us
because the general public thinks that we should keep a lid on
the spending," she stated. She asked Mr. Brown where he works
and about the various levels of funding for Alaska Conservation
voters.
MR. BROWN said he did not know about levels of funding or where
the funds come from. He said he is a volunteer. He is from
Anchorage and is in Juneau on vacation, taking some paid leave
from his job and getting involved with the legislature as his
civic duty. To the best of his knowledge, everything has been
above board and Alaska Conservation Voters has qualified as a
non-group entity. He is concerned about the issues, such as
clean air and clean water.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she agreed with him about clean air,
clean water, clean soil. (However, she noted, she parts company
with those in conservation groups when it comes to visual
impact.) She said she does not know much about Alaska
Conservation Voters but has heard that the money comes in
through different organizations that contribute funds that may
or may not be used in political campaigns. She said HB 177
would let people know where the money comes from, and she thinks
that information should be disclosed.
MR. BROWN observed that it healthy to have both sides talking
about issues.
Number 0683
REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked Mr. Brown how he thinks HB 177 would
impact Alaska Conservation Voters.
MR. BROWN said he understands that Alaska Conservation Voters is
the only 501C-4, which is a qualified non-group entity. So HB
177 would only affect Alaska Conservation Voters. He said that
causes him concern.
MR. BROWN explained that his concern was not just for Alaska
Conservation Voters, but also for other non-group entities. The
definition, "does not have business activities, doesn't have
shareholders or corporate earnings, and is independent of
business influences" to him described parents, he said. He is
concerned about parents because of some of the current education
proposals. "When we start giving out diplomas with endorsements
and different types of diplomas for different children, parents
are going to want to respond to that in the legislature or in
the election process," he said. He envisioned parents whose
children are going to be getting "inferior diplomas" coming
together, forming a non-group entity, and seeking Outside money
to help them.
Number 0513
REPRESENTATIVE FATE clarified that he did not want to know what
the Alaska Conservation Voters was, but how HB 177 would affect
them.
MR. BROWN said he thought that to participate in the 2002
elections, they would have to list all the people who
contributed. He also thinks HB 177 might put a limit on how
much a person contributes.
CHAIR COGHILL asked Mr. Brown if he would object to that.
MR. BROWN said he did not have an objection to knowing where the
money came from.
Number 0422
STEVE CONN, Executive Director, Alaska Public Interest Research
Group (AKPIRG), testified by teleconference. He reminded the
committee that the Alaska Supreme Court ruled in 1999 that
ideological nonprofit corporations have a right to participate
in the political process. He said:
Those ideological nonprofit corporations that are
formed to promote political ideas and that are
independent from the influence of business have a
unique status because their political expenditures
don't pose the same "dangers" as those of
corporations. It would appear even in the amended
substitute that this bill is directed at replacing
that court opinion with a statute that re-encompasses
that sort of entity. The focus ... seems to be [on]
the issue of political ideas and political beliefs.
That is to say, my "read" of this is that with the
disclosure that is being asked for, that some
individuals [such as] a high-placed executive in one
of the oil companies or in an oil service company like
VECO [Corporation] who wants to participate monetarily
in this sort of alliance ... would fear that they
would suffer some sort of retribution ....
This brings me to ... the thrust of my testimony and
that is that I think we need to determine whether or
not this bill effectively institutionalizes a kind of
intolerance of the free flow of political ideas. In
other words, I think Alaskans believe that their
beliefs should be set in motion in the political
process without fear of retribution and that we are
served, as the previous witness said, by a free, open
discourse. I think in the issue of development versus
non-development, the Alaska population is really a
blend of ideas, and this is what surveys seem to show,
and I don't think that ... most people are deeply on
one side or the other, but what they want to see is
that all of these ideas are introduced and developed
in the political process. And so it would seem to me
that this bill is perhaps overreaching and would
ultimately be found unconstitutional, but that is a
matter for another day and another time.
More important is that in this period of time when I
know the legislature is quite concerned about an
emerging intolerance in our society that they should
step back from this ... as a bill that seems to be
targeted and [word indisc.] revisit this from the
standpoint of the belief that political beliefs should
be practiced, there should be a free flow of ideas
however unpopular whether about development or non-
development, or other forms of civil libertarian
belief, and I think this is what ... the logic of the
court's decision was about ....
TAPE 01-28, SIDE A
Number 0040
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Mr. Conn, "Don't you think that
Alaska's public ... needs to know where the money is coming from
to sell these ideas?" She went on to say the whole issue of
campaign finance reform and the ability to have money be your
voice and the efforts to actually keep down so much money in
different areas, the whole gist of everything seems to be, "It's
OK for you to put your money where your mouth is, but the rest
of the people need to know whose money it is." Don't you want
that in all of the people who are working on the other sides of
the issue from you, she asked.
MR. CONN returned to what he thinks is the basic logic of the
court decision that excluded a particular category of group.
In an ideal world, that would be precisely what I
would want to see happen. But in the real world,
tainted by the possibility of retribution for
political expression, some people and some forms of
belief are in the minority and are always going to be
unpopular. And the court's point of view was that to
allow the exercise of political expression, there
needed to be a shield for the practice of political
activity in some instances, and they carved out a
particular area that deals with ... matters of
ideology and nonprofits. Now it might be something
about parents going up against the educational
establishment; it might be in this instance something
about how much we develop or don't develop, where,
how, and what, but that's the nature of things. And
so this is a kind of shield and ... it's a balancing
act, and that's the best ...[way I can] put it.
Number 0286
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES responded:
"It is a shield, and that is the problem with the
whole thing. It is a shield and so you have somebody
you're talking about who is in the minority, wants to
make their voice louder, gets money from people who
are not disclosed, who take no blame or no credit for
getting the message out. That is the issue and let me
tell you as a campaigner for the legislature, I can
tell you ... a long list of people who refused to give
me more than $100 because they don't want their name
disclosed. So certainly there are people out there
that don't want their name disclosed but ... in this
whole issue of the greater good for the public
interest, if you want to participate, you've got to
let people know who you are. That's the point ....
CHAIR COGHILL observed that there were just 15 minutes remaining
in the committee meetings. "Certainly, some of the substance of
the bill has been brought to light" along with different points
of view, he said.
Number 0406
PAMELA LaBOLLE, President, Alaska State Chamber of Commerce,
came forward to testify. She said the Alaska State Chamber of
Commerce supports HB 177. 1. The special interest group that
is being addressed in this legislation is a creation of the
court. The courts are creating policy that the State Chamber
feels is the purview of the legislature. The Alaska State
Chamber of Commerce has a political action committee and must
follow the APOC rules and declare who gives money and where that
money is coming from. "It's like signing your name on a letter
to the editor," she said. "If you believe in it, if you're
willing to give any money to the cause, what's wrong with saying
who you are and what you believe in?" The State Chamber is not
an industry-oriented organization, she said. "We represent
people from all [kinds of] businesses across the state. The
point is, we have no problem with complying with this law but
why because we are a 501C-6 [as opposed to a 501C-4] should we
be the only ones who have to say what we believe in. We don't
have any problems with putting our money up and then saying who
we are and what we believe in, and we don't think any other
group in this state that is formed for the purpose of advancing
their philosophies or their thinking in the political arena that
they should have any problems with saying who they are and where
their money is coming from."
Number 0632
CHAIR COGHILL noted that HB 177 has a referral to the Judiciary
Committee. He then reminded the committee that "the policy of
the State of Alaska resides within the legislature and the
courts follow suit from that, instead of us following suit from
them." Whether or not these [non-group entities] should be
subject to the full disclosure requirements, as other groups are
required by law to be is the policy decision he thinks the State
Affairs Committee is being asked to make.
Number 0688
REPRESENTATIVE FATE commented, "I do not know of any court
determination that compels an ideology to be based on how much
money is spent in a campaign. An ideology ... can be
promulgated by a campaigner or by a person who is supporting a
campaign, but the dollar amount -- I've never heard of the court
...[doing] any adjudication of that."
CHAIR COGHILL observed that people have the right to associate
with an organization or group, but if they exercise that right
of association by contributing to an organization or group,
their names should be on the list of contributors for disclosure
to the public.
Number 0782
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES moved to report CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO.
177(STA), "An Act placing certain special interest organizations
within the definition of 'group' for purposes of Alaska's
campaign finance statutes; and requiring disclosure of the true
source of campaign contributions," out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, CSHB 177(STA) was moved from the House
State Affairs Standing Committee. [CSHB 177(STA) MOVED FROM
COMMITTEE]
Number 0830
CHAIR COGHILL announced that there would not be a meeting of the
full committee on Tuesday, March 27, but the time would be held
for the subcommittee meeting on bills related to shortening the
legislative session.
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES asked if it would be possible for the
Committee of the Whole to meet in executive session "to find out
what our money is being spent for for Arctic Power. I think
that as 60 members of this body who are elected to represent the
people of Alaska ...[indisc.] I feel very uncomfortable putting
almost $2 million into an organization and I do not know what
that money is being used for. That has been troubling me since
we've discussed it. I've voted for it, I've supported it, but I
really don't feel comfortable not knowing where we're spending
that money."
CHAIR COGHILL observed that that may be an issue for the Finance
Committee, although ... talking about public policy ... on the
national level representing Alaska may be something that the
State Affairs [Committee] would be [indisc.]
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES voiced her personal opinion on executive
sessions: "You have to sign in blood that says anything that's
in that executive session you'll never mention. I don't trust
myself, [Laughter] so many times when there's an executive
session, I don't stay. I just wanted to put that on the
record."
Number 0967
CHAIR COGHILL told Representative Hayes, "You want to discover
something that I think ... the public needs to discover. It's
something we as Alaska are doing as a matter of policy. What
I'll do is I'll commit to you that I'll check in to see what my
purview is on that as a chairman, and if there's something we
can discuss in committee properly, under our purview, then we'll
do it. If it's something that the Finance Committee has
reserved for itself, then we'll have to discuss it with them,
but I have no problem bringing that up. What's going on in the
State of Alaska is the people's business; they should know.
Certainly it will be a political issue, but it is probably an
issue warranting discussion."
Number 1017
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:53
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|