03/11/2003 08:00 AM House STA

Audio	Topic

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled

Schedule
Detailed Minutes
Documents
Doc

pdf txt

ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE March 11, 2003 8:00 a.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Bruce Weyhrauch, Chair Representative Jim Holm, Vice Chair Representative Nancy Dahlstrom Representative Bob Lynn Representative Paul Seaton Representative Ethan Berkowitz Representative Max Gruenberg MEMBERS ABSENT All members present COMMITTEE CALENDAR HOUSE BILL NO. 15 "An Act relating to establishing the Alaska No-Call List, a data base of residential telephone customers who do not wish to receive telephonic solicitations; providing that the data base be compiled at no cost to the customers; requiring paid telephonic sellers to purchase the data base; requiring telephonic sellers to identify themselves; requiring telephonic solicitors who are otherwise exempt from registration as telephonic solicitors to file with the Department of Law and purchase the data base; and providing for an effective date." - HEARD AND HELD CONFIRMATION HEARINGS Personnel Board Paulette Simpson - Douglas - CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED Alaska Public Offices Commission Larry Wood - Eagle River - CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED EXECUTIVE ORDER 108 - TRANSFER FUNCTIONS TO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES - EXECUTIVE ORDER ADVANCED HOUSE BILL NO. 158 "An Act eliminating the longevity bonus program and making related conforming changes; and providing for an effective date." - HEARD AND HELD HOUSE BILL NO. 157 "An Act eliminating the Alaska Public Offices Commission; transferring campaign, public official, and lobbying financial disclosure record-keeping duties to the division of elections; relating to reports, summaries, and documents regarding campaign, public official, and lobbying financial disclosure; providing for enforcement by the Department of Law; making conforming statutory amendments; and providing for an effective date." - SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD HOUSE BILL NO. 161 "An Act allowing expenses of the correctional industries program that may be financed from the correctional industries fund to include the salaries and benefits of state employees." - SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 4 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to the duration of a regular session. - SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: HB 15 SHORT TITLE:TELEMARKETERS NO-CALL LISTS SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)FATE Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 01/21/03 0035 (H) PREFILE RELEASED (1/10/03)

01/21/03 0035 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS

01/21/03 0035 (H) L&C, STA, FIN

01/29/03 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17

01/29/03 (H) Committee MINUTE(L&C) ANDERSON; DAHLSTROM BILL: HB SHORT TITLE:ELIMINATING LONGEVITY BONUS PROGRAM SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action REFERRALS WITNESS REGISTER REPRESENTATIVE HUGH FATE Alaska State Legislature Juneau, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 03-19, SIDE A Number 0001 CHAIR BRUCE WEYHRAUCH called the House State Affairs Standing Committee meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. Representatives Holm, Seaton, Dahlstrom, Berkowitz, Gruenberg, and Weyhrauch were present at the call to order. Representative Lynn arrived as the meeting was in progress. HB Number 0040 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the first order of business was HOUSE BILL NO. 15, "An Act relating to establishing the Alaska No-Call List, a data base of residential telephone customers who do not wish to receive telephonic solicitations; providing that the data base be compiled at no cost to the customers; requiring paid telephonic sellers to purchase the data base; requiring telephonic sellers to identify themselves; requiring telephonic solicitors who are otherwise exempt from registration as telephonic solicitors to file with the Department of Law and purchase the data base; and providing for an effective date." [In committee packets was a proposed committee substitute (CS), Version I, labeled 23-LS0058\I, Craver, 2/28/03.] Number 0219 REPRESENTATIVE HUGH FATE, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, referred to Version I and said it provides an opportunity for people not to receive annoying telephonic solicitations. The new language puts into place a plan to allow Alaskans to submit their phone numbers to be placed on a list that will eliminate sales phone calls from professional solicitors. It would require companies involved in telephone soliciting to purchase that list and make every attempt to not call those numbers. This won't eliminate every phone call. Groups will still be permitted to contact their members, and companies and organizations that have done business with a customer within the last two years will still be permitted to contact homes and seek donations. REPRESENTATIVE FATE said this has support from the AARP. He noted that many telephone solicitor calls are directed toward seniors. He spoke of the fast-talking scam artists who make "too good to come true" offers, taking the life savings out of the pockets of many of those senior citizens. He opined that while [federal efforts in progress] will help, much of the authority must remain in the hands of the state. Noting that much of the language is based on Colorado's, he said that state is "receiving and not losing funds from the program." He told the committee this is an opportunity to improve the lives of constituents by ending "this fast-growing intrusion into our private lives." He mentioned an intention to reduce or eliminate the fiscal note. Number 0520 REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt the proposed CS, Version objection, Version I was before the committee. REPRESENTATIVE FATE clarified that an annual fee of $5 [to be paid by the residential subscriber] is part of Version I. Number 0720 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered Amendment 1, which [applied to Section 9 of the bill but] read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Section 2. AS 45.50.475(b) Page 8, line 14, change "engage a person in a telephone conversation repeatedly" to "repeatedly engage a person in telephone conversations." There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. Number 0810 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered Amendments 2(a) and 2(b). Amendment 2(a) read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Section 2. AS 45.50.475(b) Page 2, line 18, remove "of $750." Amendment 2(b) read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Section 2. AS 45.50.475(b) Page 2, line 18, remove "of $750." This provision allows the attorney general to set the access fee. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that Amendment 2(a) says it would be at least $750, and Amendment 2(b) allows [the attorney general] to set the fee. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH surmised that Representative Gruenberg was asking that the committee hold a policy discussion to decide whether the $750 should be removed or put as a "floor." REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he assumes [the committee] wants it to cover the cost. He suggested another option might be to change the word "must" on line 21 to "is example. He said he'd just like to make sure these things mesh. Number 0983 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked how many solicitations occur in the state. He explained that the question is whether $750 will cover the cost, and that he was trying to understand the dimensions of the issue. Number 1030 JIM POUND, Staff to Representative Hugh Fate, Alaska State Legislature, said it depends on how many calls are made regionally. He surmised that in Alaska three or four [companies make solicitous in-state calls]; many calls are generated from Outside. He estimated that there are 15 to 20 companies in the Seattle area and 30 to 40 companies in Colorado. He added, "Anymore, they seem to be able to call from anywhere in the country." REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ suggested that another alternative is to charge a fee each time the list is used, rather than allowing a subscriber to buy the list for a year. MR. POUND said he would interpret the $750 in the legislation as a one-time-only fee per year, much like a subscription. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ explained that his suggestion was in the context of Representative Gruenberg's proposal to have a policy discussion with regard to subsidizing the cost of maintaining the list. REPRESENTATIVE FATE posited that [having a per-use fee] could tend to raise administrative costs. Number 1230 REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reported that his study of the fiscal note showed that at $750, it would be a $103,000 fiscal note in the first year, which would take approximately 125 subscribers to offset. Referring to the numbers of companies in and out of the state previously alluded to by Mr. Pound, he said he was trying to figure out how the bill would be enforced. Number 1326 REPRESENTATIVE FATE responded that he thinks there was previous discussion regarding that point. He said there are ways of enforcing it, but there will also be "some slippage"; for instance, some solicitors change phone numbers and addresses every week. Regarding the others, he recalled that "there were ways in which the state could stop those kinds of solicitors, or force them to buy the list." CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked about charging a fee that would pay for the cost of the program, and leaving it up to the agency. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG indicated that's essentially the intent of Amendment 2(b). REPRESENTATIVE FATE explained that the fiscal note had not yet been changed to reflect the effects of the $5 per-person charge. He added, "That was to have changed this fiscal note and to have, if not completely covered the cost, to have come very nearly to covering the cost." Number 1433 MR. POUND, in response to a question from Representative Seaton, said the phone company will have nothing to do with the fees. The company involved with the fees will be that with which the Department of Law has contracted, because that is where the data base will be created. Number 1476 REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM told Representative Fate she didn't understand how the state could manage this without the phone company's involvement. She asked if he'd engaged in conversations with the various local exchange carriers and if they are able and willing to step up to the plate with regard to the enforcement that will go along with this. REPRESENTATIVE FATE said several states do this very nicely. He deferred to Mr. Pound. MR. POUND responded that he'd held a conversation with GCI, whose biggest concern was with the management of telephone lines and the associated costs. He noted that the $5 fee and annual renewal requirement would eliminate GCI's concern. He said, essentially, a person's number would come off the list if that person didn't automatically renew and pay the $5 each year. In further response, he reiterated that no money would go to the phone company; it would go to the contractor that would be contracted with through the Department of Law. It would be a matter of people's asking to be on the list, regardless of what phone company they used. Number 1648 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said it seems charging people $5 to assert their privacy rights is a tad peculiar. He asked if there was any reason not to drop that provision. REPRESENTATIVE FATE answered that there is probably no reason, but Alaska hasn't had any experience [with a no-call list]. He also mentioned the state's current population base. The $5 is necessary in order to pay for the program, he opined; however, that doesn't mean that provision can't be dropped in the future, once there is some experience in the program. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he can't imagine that the number of people who would register for this service would exceed administering the $5 fees would take most of what income might result from administering those fees. He added, "I hate to go to people and say, 'You need to pay in order to be let alone.' I think that sends a real mixed message." Number 1760 MR. POUND responded that people already have to pay a phone company for unlisted telephone numbers. A $5 user fee would cover [the state's] expenses. He said, "If we do not charge a $5 user fee and there is no ability to cancel out a telephone number, the telephone company is going to consider that additional cost on their end, and they're going to end up charging the fee and they'll get the $5." REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said it seems [the legislature] could see that costs are covered by having the amount be more than $750. He explained that if people want to pay money to bother him at home, he is quite willing to let them do that; however, he doesn't think he should have to pay to tell them to leave him alone. He stated his belief that the burden is on [those companies] to gain access to his information, not on him to tell them to stay away. MR. POUND told Representative Berkowitz that the "black dot" list - which the program under discussion has been equated to - is basically a "pay" service. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ emphasized that it's a [service] with the phone company. He said there is an important difference between requiring the government to be an agent of pay, as opposed to a private entity. Number 1859 REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to page 5, beginning on line 23, which read: (4) calls on behalf of the person that result in violations of this section occur not more than twice in a 30-day period [AS 45.50.475 ARE INFREQUENT]. He said the way that reads to him is that a solicitor could call once a month - basically, several times a year - and not have a violation. Number 1900 MR. POUND explained that the intent is to allow for two mistakes. The [language] is not designed so that if a solicitor calls someone who is on the list, he or she can immediately be thrown into jail; it is designed to eliminate as many solicitous phone calls as is practicable. He added, "And if it becomes a problem under the harassment section, then it becomes a felony." REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reiterated that his interpretation of the language is that a solicitor could call once a month without being in violation. MR. POUND said that is the language of the Department of Law and that he doesn't think Representative [Fate] would object to eliminating that section. REPRESENTATIVE FATE stated, "You sometimes have to make allowances for mistakes." He said he thinks the language simply allows for two mistakes in a 30-day period. Number 2015 REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he doesn't think it was anybody's intention to allow a telemarketer to call a person on the no- call list once a month. He asked if he might be misinterpreting the language. MR. POUND said he interpreted the language to say that the solicitor would not be allowed to make more than two mistakes "out of their data base" in a 30-day period. Number 2030 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to [page 5], beginning on line 12, which read as follows: (d) A person who employs individuals to engage in telephonic [TELEPHONE] solicitations is not liable for the violation of this section [data base [TELEPHONE DIRECTORY] as not wishing to receive telephonic [TELEPHONE] solicitations if the person established that (1) the person has adopted and implemented written procedures to comply with (a) of this section including corrective actions where appropriate; (2) the person has trained its personnel in the procedures established under (1) of this subsection; (3) the call that violated this section [AS 45.50.475] was made contrary to the procedures and policies established by the person; and (4) calls on behalf of the person that result in violations of this section occur not more than twice in a 30-day period [AS 45.50.475 ARE INFREQUENT]. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said the way he reads that, a solicitor can make two calls to a person on the [no-call] list in any 30- day period and get away with it; a solicitor who makes three or more is in violation. He said he could understand the goal from [the Department of] Law, because [the deleted original language using] the word "infrequent" is vague, which could result in a constitutional challenge. He said the question is to decide what the standard ought to be. Number 2155 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH reminded the committee that there were still proposed amendments pending. He remarked that Representative Fate had addressed the fiscal note, but it was based on the original bill. He acknowledged that it would be any sponsor's concern to have a low fiscal note, but said, "The fiscal note had not addressed these fee changes." He agreed with Representative Berkowitz that he doesn't want to have to pay to have someone not call him, which is like paying [racketeers] for protection. He said he also thinks [the legislature should] charge the people who want to take advantage of the consumer by calling at all hours to pay the cost of the program. Transferring the burden of the cost to the callers might result in a zero fiscal note. Number 2265 REPRESENTATIVE HOLM asked if the purpose of the bill is to protect people from getting the [solicitous] calls; if so, why would someone want to pay a $5 fee every year? He emphasized, "I don't want them to call ever." He asked how might present an option for people to put their names on a list so that they'd never be called. He said Representative Berkowitz brought up an interesting point about rights. Representative Holm said, "I'm not sure when you get a phone that you have a right not to have somebody ring it." He stated his understanding that there is machinery currently on the market for approximately $30 that prevents people from automatically dialing one's number. He asked for guidance. He clarified that he wants to know if this bill will stop people from calling or only stop them from calling for a year because the $5 fee has been paid. Number 2366 REPRESENTATIVE FATE responded that [HB REPRESENTATIVE FATE noted that he has received [numerous] public opinion messages [in support of] the legislation. Number 2588 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ, in regard to Representative Holm's previous questions about the propriety of banning people from making phone calls, said people put "no trespass" signs on their doors. He said he honors those when he campaigns and hopes the other legislators do too. He said he is weighing in with those who previously said the $5 fee should not be passed, but that cost should be passed on to the solicitors. He asked that [the sponsor] make sure that [automated calls] are addressed as well, since they aren't live calls from people and are "way more annoying than they ought to be, even when they are political ones from the President." CHAIR WEYHRAUCH stated his intent to pass the bill out of committee by Thursday [March 13, 2003] as a committee substitute that would speed through the House Finance Committee. REPRESENTATIVE FATE said he would appreciate the assistance of the committee. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ noted that the $5 issue is a policy call for this committee to make, whereas working on the fiscal note is the job of the House Finance Committee. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said he thinks the focus of the committee is to have "as much of the burden of the program pass to those who would take advantage of the consumer." Number 2717 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated a need for either an interstate compact or federal legislation. He suggested adding a provision to the bill requesting the federal government to legislate in this area, because these companies are not Alaskan companies. REPRESENTATIVE FATE related his understanding that there is pending federal legislation. Number 2804 STEVE CLEARY, Executive Director, Alaska Public Interest Research Group (AKPIRG), let the committee know that he would be available whenever HB Colorado recently, and his relatives [lauded] the program there. He said, "The fact that it's more than paying for itself speaks to how worthy this program is." Number 2869 MARIE DARLIN, AARP Capital City Task Force, testified in support of HB [AARP's] state office in which it addressed the fact that there is currently proposed federal legislation. Notwithstanding that, she said AARP's members strongly feel that [Alaska] needs to have its own law, because the [pending] federal law does not go far enough and doesn't preclude states from having "stronger bills." She noted that the "black dot" program depending on a person's phone company's rates. She said probably two-thirds of seniors [in Alaska] would pay $1, if that amount were offered, in order not to be called [by solicitors]. Number 2946 REPRESENTATIVE HARRY CRAWFORD, Alaska State Legislature, cosponsor HB establish a self-supporting program, after looking at other states' programs, which were between $300 and $800. TAPE 03-19, SIDE B Number 2996 REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said the program should be paid for by the people who want to make money with it; consumers shouldn't have to pay to be left alone. He referred to the current "black dot" list and said, in some places in rural Alaska, it costs up to $50 to get on it. He noted that only 2 percent of subscribers in Alaska get on that list, whereas in other states that have a do-not-call list, the number of subscribers is 10 to adequate amount to attract third-party contractors to administer the program at no cost to the state. Number 2917 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Representative Crawford if he knows if other states have a mandatory fine for violation of the provisions. REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD answered, "It's all over the board as to what becomes a violation." He said he thinks two calls per month is probably the most lax. He noted that [the sponsor] had used much of the language from the Colorado bill, but added, "We left that part out." REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said it seems that if there were mandatory sanctions for violations, those sanctions would help offset the cost of the program. He added, "There's unscrupulous solicitors out there, and we ought to be dinging them for the cost of this, rather than the people of the state." Number 2878 REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said the State of Oregon is making more money back on the program with its prosecutions than it ever put out. It is a positive fiscal note once the program gets under way. He informed the committee that when Louisiana [adopted] a do-not-call list, 50,000 people signed up in the first week. REPRESENTATIVE FATE mentioned including the Department of Law in discussions of HB date and the next hearing on March 13, 2003]. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that HB CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the last order of business was HOUSE BILL NO. 158, "An Act eliminating the longevity bonus program and making related conforming changes; and providing for an effective date." Number 1070 MIKE MILLER, Commissioner, Department of Administration (DOA), explained that his role was to give some background regarding 158 committee that there have been three major votes in the legislature regarding the Alaska Longevity Bonus program; he was in the legislature for two of those votes, while his older brother was in the legislature for the first vote. He said he discussed the first vote at length with his brother. The vote was taken in the mid-1970s and created the Alaska Longevity Bonus program; at that time, it had a type of sunset clause because the only people who could qualify were those who'd been in Alaska before 1959 - before statehood. Commissioner Miller said, according to his older brother, it was an effort to reward Alaskans who had been in the state during the territorial days. COMMISSIONER MILLER said there was a case against a longevity bonus program in 1984 - the Vest case - which challenged the constitutionality of the territorial clause; the State of Alaska lost in the Alaska Supreme Court. Commissioner Miller said he was in the legislature at that time and it had two choices: abolish the program or open it up to all seniors. He noted that [the state] was "awash in oil dollars" at the time and opened the program up to all seniors. He indicated, in retrospect, that this was a mistake. Number 1237 COMMISSIONER MILLER said in 1994 the program's costs were beginning to "run wild" in the amount of $67 million and were projected to be over $100 million within the next couple of years, with no end in sight; [the legislature] decided something had to be done and chose to "stair step" the program. He took responsibility for that decision which, he opined, turned out to be the wrong one. Two classes of seniors were unintentionally created: those who collect [the bonus check] and those who don't. He estimated that there are 18,000 people collecting [longevity bonus] checks. His sources tell him that there are approximately 38,000 people in Alaska over the age of 65. He added that there's no rationale of "why you get it, or why you do not get it." COMMISSIONER MILLER shared stories illustrating that the result of the stair stepping was that some seniors born and raised in Alaska, but born one year past the cutoff date, did not qualify, whereas others qualified for the program after having moved up from "Outside," for example. He said the program no longer serves its original intent; the program passed in the '70s bears no resemblance to the one in existence today. Commissioner Miller said this is one reason he is personally supporting the bill to eliminate the program. In response to a question by Chair Weyhrauch, he said the original bill [required that a person had to be] 65 years old. He said he believes that currently the youngest senior on the program is 72. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said, "That's correct." CHAIR WEYHRAUCH offered his understanding that [the current qualifications] require a senior to be 72 to collect it. COMMISSIONER MILLER answered yes, "assuming that they were in the state at the time that the last step took place." He said his mother is 86 years old, was out of the state approximately five years during the stair stepping, is now back in the state, but does not qualify, even though he believes she paid her dues in the territorial days and early statehood. In further response, he said he doesn't know the exact number of people in Alaska who are at least 72 years old. He reiterated that there are two groups of seniors for whom, in his opinion, there is little rhyme or reason why they've been divided that way. Number 1514 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ disagreed. Noting that a statute came into effect in 1996, he said about the program, "It was a promise that apparently that legislature felt it couldn't keep in perpetuity, so, in essence, it phased out the program; that constitutes rhyme and reason." He said he appreciates the difficult financial position it puts the state in, but a promise was made to seniors, many of whom are depending on the income from the longevity bonus and most of whom are on fixed incomes. For example, according to some surveys he has viewed, he said up to 65 percent of the people in the Matanuska-Susitna area who collected [the bonus] in 1993 indicated it was absolutely essential for their well-being. He told Representative Miller, "You might disagree with it, but to dismiss it as being without sense, I think, overstates your case." COMMISSIONER MILLER explained that the "rhyme or reason" referred to the legislature's lacking the political courage to say, "Enough is enough." He said he would agree to disagree [with Representative Berkowitz]. Number 1610 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there had ever been an analysis done during Commissioner Miller's time in the legislature to consider making the program needs-based. COMMISSIONER MILLER said there had been some discussion; however, there was disagreement within the senior community as to whether to make it needs-based. He said he believed that the prior [Knowles] administration offered proposals a couple of times to make it needs-based, but the legislature, for whatever reason, decided not to do that. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there had been discussion regarding having people "check off" whether they want the longevity bonus or not. COMMISSIONER MILLER said he doesn't believe that discussion took place, although people could make that choice by not applying for the bonus. In response to a question regarding how people sign up each year, Commissioner Miller explained that people who receive the check each year fill out a form found on each check. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there'd ever been an attempt to send a form out to qualifying seniors asking if they want to receive a longevity bonus, asking them to sign and send the form back. Number 1735 COMMISSIONER MILLER said he doesn't believe that sort of "blanket statement" had even been discussed. He reminded the committee that unlike an executive order, a bill can be changed [to incorporate] different ideas. He agreed to a request made by Chair Weyhrauch to "send us the form." In further response, he related his belief that checks go out either at the end of the month or at the first of the month. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there had been any analysis to determine what the predominate use of the money received by seniors is. COMMISSIONER MILLER indicated he didn't know. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH offered that he has heard the money is used to offset the cost of prescription drugs. COMMISSIONER MILLER said he understands what a tough decision is before the committee. [The state] would spend approximately $47.5 million on the program [in 2003]. The legislature needs to ask if that's affordable or whether some of that money would be better spent in other areas for seniors. The question he posed to the committee is whether it should spend limited dollars as a "blanket" to all seniors, or to help those most in need. He said he personally believes in the latter. Number 1900 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked that top department officials be involved on future hearings [of HB alternative plan. He asked Commissioner Miller, "Where else can you cut into your department?" COMMISSIONER MILLER said his department has large areas where general fund dollars exist, such as the Office of the Public Defender, OPA [Office of Public Advocacy], and "leasings," but "leasings" is the only area that can and is being considered for cuts. He indicated that Pioneers' Homes and Senior Services have large amounts of general fund dollars, but will be moving to the Department of Health & Social Services. He mentioned the [Division] of Motor Vehicles [within the Department of Administration] as another agency with general fund dollars. He indicated some things just cannot be touched. Number 2357 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said his previous question was partly rhetorical because he knows there aren't many areas [where cuts can occur]. He then mentioned an issue before the committee the prior week regarding public facilities, which are administered by several different departments. He asked Commissioner Miller if he believed there would be any cost savings in consolidating the administration of public facilities. COMMISSIONER MILLER responded that some of those issues are being considered now and he believes there would be some cost savings, but he could not say how much at the present time. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested this committee would be interested in Commissioner Miller's views on that. COMMISSIONER MILLER reiterated that the committee is faced with a big policy call. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that CSHB 15(L&C) Out of 02/10/03 0166 (H) L&C RPT CS(L&C) NT 3DP 4AM 02/10/03 0166 (H) DP: CRAWFORD, ROKEBERG, 02/10/03 0166 (H) AM: LYNN, GATTO, GUTTENBERG, 02/10/03 0167 (H) FN1: ZERO(CED) 02/10/03 0167 (H) FN2: (LAW) 02/10/03 0167 (H) REFERRED TO STATE AFFAIRS 02/10/03 0172 (H) COSPONSOR(S): CRAWFORD 02/18/03 0231 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KERTTULA 02/18/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 02/18/03 (H) Heard & Held 02/18/03 (H) MINUTE(STA) 02/25/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 02/25/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard 03/05/03 0450 (H) COSPONSOR(S): CROFT 03/11/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 158 03/05/03 0427 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - 03/05/03 0427 (H) STA, FIN 03/05/03 0428 (H) FN1: (ADM) 03/05/03 0428 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER 03/05/03 0428 (H) REFERRED TO STATE AFFAIRS 03/11/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 href='/basis/Bill/Detail/23?Root=HB15'>HB 15. href='/basis/Bill/Detail/23?Root=HB15'>HB 15. HB 15. href='/basis/Bill/Detail/23?Root=HB15'>HB 15. href='/basis/Bill/Detail/23?Root=HB15'>HB 15. name='HB158' href='/basis/Bill/Detail/23?Root=HB158'>HB 158 and 15-TELEMARKETERS NO-CALL LISTS 23-LS0058\I, Craver, 2/28/03, as a work draft. There being no intended to", for 20,000-50,000. In that range, he said, the cost of href='/basis/statutes.asp#45.50.475'>AS 45.50.475] if an the committee /Bill/Detail/23?Root=HB15'>HB 15] is not a bill to ill/Detail/23?Root=HB15'>HB 15 may not prevent one or 15] needs to move. 15 is scheduled again. He said he was in 15, noting that the committee had a letter of support from costs $5 to $8, 15, said the amount of $750 was set in an effort to 20 percent. He offered his belief that $750 would be an 15 [that would take place between this meeting etail/23?Root=HB15'>HB 15 would be held over. have 23?Root=HB157'>HB 157] ail/23?Root=HB157'>HB 157, which would eliminate APOC]. of Health & Social eyes," more 158-ELIMINATING LONGEVITY BONUS PROGRAM HB and the Alaska Longevity Bonus program. He reminded the 23?Root=HB158'>HB 158]. He also requested the presence that he href='/basis/Bill/Detail/23?Root=HB148'>HB 148 passes]. He 158 would be controversial; therefore, it must have an Detail/23?Root=HB158'>HB 158 would be held over. 10:12 a.m. s"> id="docLink">Open document in new windowX ght:100%;min-height:600px" id="docFrame"> width="105" height="107" bills, locate ist-whos-who.php">contact information. g.gov/webmaster.php">help

SMS Bill Tracking

Text a bill number (ex: HB1) to 559-245-2529 to enroll in text alerts. You will receive an enrollment confirmation and instructions on how to stop receiving the alerts.

03/11/2003 08:00 AM House STA

SMS Bill Tracking

WHO REPRESENTS ME??

Quick Links

Legislative Links

senate

house