04/29/2003 08:06 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
April 29, 2003
8:06 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. 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."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 4
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. 149
"An Act requiring nonprofit corporations under the Alaska Net
Income Tax Act to provide prior public notice of lobbying
expenditures and an annual report of lobbying expenditures to
the Department of Revenue; providing for a civil penalty for
failure to provide the notice; and providing for an effective
date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 24
Relating to the Alaska-Yukon Intergovernmental Relations Accord,
to annual legislative exchanges, and to continuing
intergovernmental work on matters of joint concern and mutual
interest.
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 215
"An Act repealing statutes that relate to art works in public
buildings and facilities and that require a set percentage of
construction costs to be spent on art."
- BILL HEARING POSTPONED
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 157
SHORT TITLE:ELIMINATE APOC
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/05/03 0426 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/05/03 0426 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
03/05/03 0426 (H) FN(S) FORTHCOMING
03/05/03 0426 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
03/05/03 0426 (H) REFERRED TO STATE AFFAIRS
03/11/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/11/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/12/03 0522 (H) FN1: ZERO(GOV)
03/12/03 0522 (H) FN2: (ADM)
03/12/03 0522 (H) FN3: (ADM)
04/22/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/22/03 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(STA)
04/24/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/24/03 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(STA)
04/29/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HJR 4
SHORT TITLE:CONST AM: 90 DAY LEGISLATIVE SESSION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)SAMUELS, ROKEBERG
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/21/03 0025 (H) PREFILE RELEASED (1/10/03)
01/21/03 0025 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/21/03 0025 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
01/21/03 0025 (H) REFERRED TO STATE AFFAIRS
03/11/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/11/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/17/03 0566 (H) COSPONSOR(S): CROFT
03/18/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/18/03 (H) Heard & Held
03/18/03 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/19/03 0593 (H) COSPONSOR(S): HOLM, ANDERSON,
MEYER,
03/19/03 0593 (H) MCGUIRE
04/24/03 1110 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KOHRING
04/24/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/24/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/29/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
BROOKE MILES, Executive Director
Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions for the committee,
regarding the proposed committee substitute, labeled HB157.doc,
4/24/2003, during the hearing on HB 157.
LINDA MURPHY, Clerk
Kenai Peninsula Borough
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Speaking to Sections 1 and 32 of the
proposed committee substitute, labeled HB157.doc, 4/24/2003,
suggested an option to the committee, during the hearing on HB
157.
STEPHEN CONN, Special Projects Officer
Alaska Public Interest Research Group (AkPIRG)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered a short-term history of the
campaign finance law and HB 157, and asked the committee to
"give some pause to" the limit increases proposed in the
committee substitute.
ANDREE McLEOD
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Stated concern about raising the limits on
contributions and removing the prohibition of lobbyists, during
the hearing on HB 157.
JAN DeYOUNG, Assistant Attorney General
Governmental Affairs Section
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered a question regarding Section 34 of
the proposed committee substitute, labeled HB157.doc, 4/24/2003,
during the hearing on HB 157.
MONA LISA DREXLER, Municipal Clerk
Fairbanks Northstar Borough
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Stated two concerns regarding
municipalities within a borough all having different standards,
and the effective date of July 1, 2003, found in the proposed
committee substitute, labeled HB157.doc, 4/24/2003, during the
hearing on HB 157.
MATT DAVIDSON, Conservation Advocate
Alaska Conservation Voters (ACV)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Asked the committee to consider an
amendment relating to Section 30 of the proposed committee
substitute, labeled HB157.doc, 4/24/2003, during the hearing on
HB 157.
SARAH A. GILBERTSON, Policy & Program Coordinator
Alaska Municipal League (AML)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Asked that the committee consider the
impact of HB 157 on municipalities.
REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SAMUELS
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HJR 4.
SARAH NEILSON, Staff
to Representative Ralph Samuels
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered a question during the hearing on
HB 157.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-45, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR BRUCE WEYHRAUCH called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:06 a.m. Representatives Holm,
Seaton, Dahlstrom, Lynn, Berkowitz, and Weyhrauch were present
at the call to order. Representative Gruenberg arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 157-ELIMINATE APOC
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the first order of business was
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."
Number 0155
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH reminded the committee that the motion to adopt
the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 157, labeled
HB157.doc, 4/24/2003, as a work draft was still pending from
4/24/03.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ withdrew his objection to the motion.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH renewed the motion. There being no objection,
the proposed CS dated 4/24/2003 was before the committee.
Number 0331
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to a [three-page] memorandum from
Ms. Miles, dated April 21, 2003, [included in the committee
packet]. He reminded the committee that at the last hearing on
HB 157 he had asked a question regarding why certain $50
contributions need to be reported, while other $10 contributions
do not. He asked Ms. Miles to confirm that [the proposed CS]
would require that all individual contributions - "no matter
what level, unless they're at [an] activity of over 25 people" -
be [disclosed].
Number 0490
BROOKE MILES, Executive Director, Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC), said that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said, "I just want to let the committee
know that ... I'm going to withdraw my objection to this
differential." He stated that he has no problem with the
requirement to report information if there is also a requirement
to collect it.
Number 0566
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he recalls that [campaigners] are
required to keep that information currently. He explained, "We
have to list in the aggregate if somebody goes over an amount,
which means we need to ... keep records of small contributions."
He offered an example. He asked if [the proposed CS] says
[campaigners] would not have to keep track of small donors [at]
large events.
MS. MILES answered that's correct. She pointed to Section 9, on
page 6, of the proposed CS and said it was drafted from a
current regulation that's been part of the campaign disclosure
law since its inception in 1974. That law, she continued,
permitted "this kind of head counting and aggregate reporting
for your high-volume/low-cost events."
MS. MILES said that after a prior meeting she had an opportunity
to speak with the attorneys at the Department of Law who told
her that even though [the proposed CS] says "spaghetti feed",
the use of the word "includes" doesn't limit it to a spaghetti
feed.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that, currently, [campaigners]
have to keep track of everyone who makes a contribution, but
don't have to report [those contributions] unless the amount
exceeds $100. He said, "What you're saying, or what this
proposal here would be, [is] that we don't keep track of people
if they show up at a big party."
MS. MILES responded that that's correct; however, she added,
"Under current law you could use the guideline, as well, because
this regulation is on the books that permits a head counting and
aggregate disclosure for those events."
Number 0776
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ specified that it's in the aggregate;
it's not based on the individual. He continued as follows:
So, say for example you have a candidate who has a
campaign that [is] chock-full of ... large events,
[but] small [donations]. You have individuals who
make contributions under the limit at these ...
events. In the aggregate, that individual could wind
up giving hundreds and hundreds of dollars to a
campaign, under this proposal - and not be reported.
MS. MILES responded that she supposes that is an eventuality;
however, current practice hasn't really proven that [to be]
true. Usually, she said, candidates are aware of whom their
main contributors are. She said, "If they show up at one of
these events, they do their best to track them separately."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if [the proposed CS] was created
in response to a particular problem. He noted that none of the
campaigns that he's aware of have had any problem keeping track
of the individuals who make large contributions.
MS. MILES replied, "This proposal was included when it was
determined that we would be requiring full disclosure, and we
didn't want to put an additional burden on reporters for the
high-volume/low-cost fundraising events."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that that burden currently
exists, so there's no additional burden. He continued:
The only additional burden that would result from this
proposal would be that you'd have to list small
donors. And since campaigns are currently required to
keep track of those small donors, it's not a major
effort to include them. And that objective of
transparency for small donors is a worthwhile policy
goal; but to get rid of the requirement that we keep
track of people who show up to large parties seems an
incentive to have a lot of large parties and not keep
track of the contributors there. It ... creates a
loophole.
Number 0915
MS. MILES said it's a loophole that's already in existing law.
She stated that she doesn't think that APOC "looked at it that
way when [it] endorsed this concept." She added that APOC
certainly wouldn't endorse a large volume of anonymous
contributions, because it wouldn't be in the public's best
interest. She said it's true that some campaigns have a series
of large volume/low cost fundraising events; however, it is not
the norm.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ illustrated one of the problems with
[the proposal] as follows:
You can take cash in small amounts, as long as you
know who's giving you the cash. There's nothing ...
at one of these large events - you have the bowl
that's sitting out in front - ... that will prevent
somebody from dumping a large amount of cash in that
bowl .... The campaign could extrapolate that that
cash didn't come from an individual, it came from all
the people there. That's why I'm concerned about
retreating from the requirement that you keep track of
every contribution made, ... regardless of the forum.
MS. MILES stated that that is an important point. She said that
is also why the APOC staff pales every time candidates talk
about "the bowl concept," because it's a frightening [scenario].
Number 1036
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH remarked that he personally received "cash in a
bowl" [during his campaign] and had to send it in to APOC.
MS. MILES responded, "By law it has to escheat to the state, so
you don't want anonymous cash."
Number 1059
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM, on a philosophical note, asked, "If APOC is
there for the purpose of determining who is influencing us -
who's influencing people - if it's an anonymous piece of cash,
what's the point?" He clarified that [candidates] can't be
influenced if they don't know who the contributors are.
Number 1103
MS. MILES responded that, foundationally, APOC is responsible
for providing information to the public. The theory is that the
public has a right to know who is financing the campaigns.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM stated that just to escheat money to APOC is
"not solving the problem." He asked if the problem is one of
whether or not it is determined who's influencing the
legislature or policy makers of the state, which is what APOC is
all about, why would anyone care if the money is not traceable?
He continued as follows:
Say I have a party of 200 people there and I don't
know who everybody is even. If somebody dropped a
hundred dollar bill in there [and] we don't know where
it comes from, having to escheat it back to APOC is
good for APOC, but it doesn't solve the public's
ability to know who's influencing people, because
there's no influence being had.
I mean, the assumption is that we're doing something
inappropriate, or ... [that] the public's doing
something inappropriate, and I find that to be
somewhat of an affront. Because we aren't doing
something inappropriate if ... somebody drops a
hundred dollar bill in your pot just because they like
you. It doesn't mean they're trying to influence you
- they're just trying to get you elected. So, why do
we go down this road that says everybody's a crook, if
we don't know how to give the money back to the state?
You're painting us with a bad brush, as if we are
intending to take money inappropriately.
Number 1235
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH told Ms. Miles that the committee appreciates
that she is sitting before them, and he acknowledged that it was
the legislature who passed the law in the first place.
MS. MILES noted that when anonymous funds are escheated to the
state, they go to the general fund, not to APOC's budget.
Number 1270
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reiterated that he had withdrawn his
objection.
Number 1370
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked what the difference is between
Section 9 and existing law.
MS. MILES answered that if there are any differences, they might
be minor wording changes that "were updated when this was
redrafted."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked, "So, this is taking a regulation
and putting it in a statute?"
MS. MILES answered that that's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, responding to Representative Holm's
previous comments, as he understood them, stated that he thinks
there are several purposes for APOC and for "this law." One
purpose, he noted, is to publicize who gives what to whom.
Another, he said, is to prevent influence. He stated that it
used to be in some legislatures that legislators would have a
box in the corner of their office where people would leave money
in the box. He said the only two people who knew [when a
contribution to the box was made] were the donor and the donee.
"That's enough," he said. Preventing that sort of thing, he
opined, is in itself a valid purpose, "even if you don't
necessarily publicize something." Preventing that sort of
occurrence, or requiring that money to be given back, he said,
is a valid goal of APOC.
Number 1505
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said another important thing that has
not yet been mentioned is that not all contributions are [made]
in support of the donee. He continued as follows:
People don't always give me money because they like
what I say. Sometimes they give me money because they
don't like what the other guy is saying. ... So, ...
we're protecting not just the integrity of the
candidate and donor, but [also] the integrity of the
process. We want to make sure ... the public knows
who's playing. Because you can corrupt the process
without corrupting the contributor or the candidate.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said that he didn't realize that "this
was by regulation." He noted that most of his [fundraising]
events [involve] 25 people or more and [receive] small
[donations] and [his campaign committee] scrupulously keeps
track of everyone who comes through the door, whether it's a
$10, $20, or $500 contribution. He posited that it's not a
burden for a campaign, but is part of being responsible. He
said, "I'm sorry that this is currently in regulation - it
shouldn't be. We should require that the campaign keeps track
of everybody who makes a contribution." He added that it would
be a different step at this point to consider whether or not to
require disclosure of individuals who make contributions in the
aggregate of less than $100 - which is currently the rule.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said it seems that there are two sets
of questions. He explained that if this regulation is enshrined
in statute, the door is opened for a series of small
contributions, in which case donors don't have to be disclosed.
He said, "I get a lot of contributions from people who give me
$99 or $100 total." He said he keeps track of their names. He
stated that [those contributors] might be in sensitive positions
or might not want to offend "somebody on the other side," but
yet they wish to be supportive. He said the committee could
have a policy debate about whether those individuals should be
disclosed or not; however, he said he thinks that to say [the
legislature] is not going to require disclosure of people who
make contributions of $50 at any event where there's more than
25 people would be opening the door to a lot of cash funneling
into campaigns.
Number 1605
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ remarked that, as far as he knows,
everyone on the committee runs honorable campaigns; however, not
everyone who gets involved in the political process has similar
standards of conduct. He said [the legislature] must make rules
for those who are not honorable and rule abiding. He reiterated
that he has a lot of concerns about lifting the requirement that
"we keep track of everybody who walks in the door."
Number 1694
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH told Representative Berkowitz that there is a
clear tension between opening doors to abuse and closing the
doors to people who want to do good work for the government and
run for office, and also to the person who simply wants to give
a plate of cookies to somebody at a bake sale because he/she
believes in that person. He revealed that he has had men,
women, and children give "small things." He stated, "If you
have to report everything, you're going to drive that donor out
of the process, and you're going to drive [out] political
candidates who have to give up their time, money, [and] effort
...." He opined that it is not good public policy to chase
people out of the political process simply because they're
burdened by a huge number of reporting requirements. He said he
thinks what Representative Berkowitz is talking about is clearly
a concern; however, he said he is worried about closing the
process to people to whom it otherwise would be open. He said
that [the legislature] must find that difficult balance.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said that the current $100 limit seems
to be part of that balance. Someone can give a plate of cookies
or make a small contribution without being disclosed. He said
there is "a tension with being transparent." He stated that
there is a potential to abuse the law by making a series of
smaller contributions that would not have to be reported, but
could add up to $500, for example. He added that there would be
no way of tracking that.
Number 1800
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM stated his appreciation for the comments
made by Representatives Berkowitz and Seaton. However, he noted
that all of the donations that he received went to the media,
not to him; therefore, he said he did not "get enriched by any
of this money." He said that since he did not "make any of the
money himself," he is somewhat offended by the idea that people
think that he somehow being manipulated because somebody might
give him $100. He remarked that $100 doesn't go very far in a
grocery store. He stated that he thinks people donate to
politicians because they respect many aspects about that
politician and he appreciates the contributions that he has
received. He said, "We risk getting too carried away here." He
echoed Chair Weyhrauch's previous comments regarding the average
person possibly not wanting to "go through this."
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM addressed Ms. Miles as follows:
I don't think I'm the sharpest knife in the drawer,
but I'm not the dumbest one either, and I don't find
the reporting process very easy to do. Now, ... if
it's complicated for me, I suggest to you that we need
to make the process more simple for folks, rather than
making it more complicated.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM referred to Section 9. He mentioned a
committee discussion held during a prior meeting. He offered
his understanding that it is a point of law that "if you state
the specific, you exclude the general." He asked if that is
true.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG reminded Representative Holm that, as
was discussed in the House Judiciary Standing Committee
previously, there is a statute that says that the word
"includes" means "including, but not limited to."
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM said, "We're okay then." He stated that he
is not certain that he likes the increase of the limits. He
suggested he would talk about that when the discussion of
amendments begins.
Number 1976
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM asked Ms. Miles how the [proposed
increases in] individual contribution amounts were determined.
MS. MILES responded that, for the most part, APOC looked at it
in terms of doubling the current [limit] and, in some cases, the
amount was arrived at through debate and compromise.
Number 2021
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if there was a problem with the $100
limit and why the $100 aggregate in a year is being dropped "to
zero, or to one penny."
MS. MILES answered that there was no problem with the current
reporting practice of the $100-and-less contributors being
aggregated and counted for. She continued as follows:
However, this was just considered a foundational step,
because as you are aware, a candidate's required to
keep that information in her or his own campaign. And
the idea being that everyone would be, at some point,
doing this electronically, it just seemed that, "Go
ahead and make it public." And of course that is a
major policy decision. That's why you're all here.
Number 2146
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ turned to the question of events. He
noted that there are a lot of events that don't require people
to be present. For example, a group of people gathered in a
phone room making phone calls might be considered a fundraiser,
he said. An event could also mean a group of people putting
contribution envelopes together and mailing them out. He said
he has a concern about the definition of events.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ echoed Representative Dahlstrom's
question regarding why the amounts [of limits] are being
increased. He asked if anyone has shown that there has been an
inadequate flow of funds to political campaigns over the last
couple of years, or if special campaigns, in particular, are
somehow experiencing problems.
MS. MILES answered that no one came to APOC and said that the
problem with the law is that $500 is not enough money; however,
APOC, in considering what isn't working, why people are so
frustrated, and why the system seems so complex, thought that
that might be an issue that no one brought forward, "because it
just seemed uncomfortable." She explained that the issue was
considered in terms of inflation, and how much [a campaign]
might cost in 2010, for example.
Number 2248
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG turned to Section 1. He said it seems
to him that this section involves two different issues. One
issue, he noted, is whether a community can opt out. The
second, which he noted is "quite a different issue," is whether
municipal participation should [have] a fee attached. He asked
Ms. Miles, "Why did you mix the two up? Why didn't you separate
the two out? And would ... the commission have an objection if
we were to charge municipalities a fee, but still require them
to participate?"
MS. MILES answered no; in fact the commission would not have a
problem with that. She stated her belief that that is what was
intended in Section 1. She said that statute used to read that
municipalities were subject to the law, unless they exempted
themselves, if - she added - they're population was greater than
1,000. She noted that there are 31 municipalities in Alaska
that are subject to the law. In response to a comment by
Representative Gruenberg, she confirmed, "This changes that and
requires that they opt in and agree to pay a fee to the state."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if this is one of those unfunded mandates
that [the legislature] is going to hear about.
MS. MILES answered that that's possible, but added that it was a
service that the state provided without cost to municipalities
in the past.
Number 2394
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Ms. Miles if she knows how much
it would cost any of the municipalities.
MS. MILES said she doesn't know, although APOC has tried to look
at the numbers [in] a different way, because of the manner in
which the commission has administered these laws [with]
municipalities and state mixed together. She noted that the
only municipality that stands separately is the Municipality of
Anchorage, because it holds a spring election. Most other
municipalities hold an October election. She said it's been
difficult for APOC to delineate "per cost." Certainly, in a
municipal campaign, where the complaints are filed in a series
regarding candidate activity or ballot group activity, the costs
are higher, she noted. Other than that, she said, there might
be up to 20 candidates running for six seats, filing four
reports, for example. The larger communities often - but not
always - have larger, more expensive campaigns.
Number 2459
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested adjusting the user fees for
those who choose to run for office and making the candidates pay
for some of the costs.
MS. MILES replied that that is an issue that has been discussed;
however, she said it seems problematic to be assessing a fee on
candidates to make public the financial activities of their
campaigns for the public's scrutiny. She noted that APOC does
"have a user fee on lobbyists."
Number 2537
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH, regarding the issue of municipalities opting
in, asked Ms. Miles to confirm that the statute in the proposed
CS would only provide to municipalities that opt in to the
process.
MS. MILES answered that is correct. In response to a follow-up
question by Chair Weyhrauch, she confirmed that there is no
requirement that a municipality use APOC or the state's system
to regulate its election whatsoever; however, as indicated in
the amended language in Section 1, if a municipality does opt
in, then the commission will charge it a fee to cover the costs.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH remarked that this is only a fee and doesn't aim
to recoup the cost of the election to APOC. If [the committee]
wants to ensure that the state has the fiscal resources to
operate its government, he suggested, it should require that the
municipalities pay the full fee to the state. Then, he said, a
municipality could make its own determination whether its budget
would allow it to run an election more efficiently, and whether
it wants to expend its local resources for its own local
election, or whether it makes sense to use the state to manage
its elections. He asked Ms. Miles if that is correct.
MS. MILES responded, "That states the philosophy perfectly."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH concluded that, if the committee wants to, it
[could] "adjust this language to the full and true value of the
election."
MS. MILES confirmed that that would be good.
Number 2627
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN stated that he has serious problems with the
proposed doubling of most of the contribution limits in the
bill. He said that as issues have come forward, he has learned
to consider who will benefit and who will lose. Doubling the
donations [allowed] would benefit the incumbent, who already has
the advantage, as well as the "high rollers" and the "big
names." He stated that it seems like it would hurt "the little
guy" who is, perhaps, getting into politics for the first time.
He said, "To a little guy getting into a campaign, a fifty-buck
contribution is pretty similar to a hundred-buck [or] two
hundred and fifty-buck contribution to the big name candidate."
He stated that this kind of thing concerns him. He indicated
that the idea is to have a level playing field. He added that,
currently, "we don't have a level playing field, for the reasons
I've stated."
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN turned to an idea which he said he had
expressed "previously," regarding instant access and using the
Internet for "disclosure purposes," which he opined would save
[APOC] time and money.
Number 2770
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ underscored Representative Lynn's
comments by stating that he was amazed at how many unsolicited
contributions he received after he had been in office, and how
many more he received after becoming the minority leader. He
remarked that it is a huge disincentive for the new challenger
who might have a good idea, but has to run against the
incumbent. Increasing the amount of money [that can be given to
a campaign] can stifle political challenge and debate, because
it's so easy for known entities to receive contributions. He
said it's nice to be on a committee of freshman legislators who
remember how difficult it is to go out and scrape for every $50
contribution.
Number 2820
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ turned to Section 1. He noted that
there would be cost for the election that each municipality
would have to bear. He continued as follows:
It's not as if municipalities that were currently in
could stay in. ... Municipalities would have to
affirmatively opt for APOC. And there's a cost to
those elections. In a time where the state is
rescinding funding to the municipalities, that's a
cost that local taxpayers - either in the form of
sales tax or property taxes are going to have to bear.
And I think we ought to be aware of it.
The other consequence is: Many municipalities might
choose to opt out, for fiscal reasons [or] for policy
reasons. And what we do then is we set up a patchwork
quilt of different standards across the state for
campaign contributions. And there's a reason why you
want to have statewide universal standards for
campaign contributions. You want everyone to know the
rules all the time. I don't want to be in the
position where if you're running in Eagle River it's
different than if you're running in Fairbanks ... [for
example]. We need to know what the rules are across
the state. Local control is very important, but
statewide standards are critical when you talk about
having a known set -- it's the rule of law. And this
goes to what the rule of law is. I just hate to think
of Alaska dividing itself into a set of little
fiefdoms, where each municipality and each borough
sets up its own standards of contributions.
Number 2940
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG turned to Section 30 of the proposed
CS, on page 20, [beginning on line 16]. He stated that it is a
terrific burden.
MS. MILES, in response to a question by Representative
Gruenberg, pointed to the language on page 20, beginning at line
24, which read as follows:
(2) the identity, by name and address, of
each business in which the person, the person's spouse
or spousal equivalent, or the person's child has an
interest or was a stockholder, owner, officer,
director, partner, proprietor, or employee during the
preceding calendar year, except that an interest of
less than $10,000 in the stock of a publicly traded
corporation need not be included;
TAPE 03-45, SIDE B
Number 0001
MS. MILES noted that the commission's proposed change to this
language is that if the stock was a publicly traded stock and
less than $10,000, a person wouldn't be required to include that
on the "exhaustive list."
Number 2951
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that he doesn't know if $10,000
is too high, but he said he is in favor of some kind of a limit,
"otherwise, particularly if you have a mutual fund that has
dozens of stocks, it is an impossible burden and very
expensive."
Number 2935
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN noted that mutual funds change stocks "by
the moment."
Number 2930
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM asked if "child" referred to a child
younger than 21, or a dependent.
MS. MILES said there is currently in statute a definition of
child which states that it is the dependent child of the filer,
or a nondependent child who lives with the filer.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM asked, for example, if she would have
to list her married child who may live with her for 6 weeks
while doing an internship in the summer.
MS. MILES stated her understanding is no, the rule would only
apply to a nondependent child living with the filer for the
calendar year.
Number 2875
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ noted that the $1,000 requirement
remains [the same] on page 20, [beginning on] line 8, [in
paragraph (3)], which reads as follows:
(3) as to each loan or loan guarantee over
$1,000 from a source with a substantial interest in
legislative, administrative, or political action, the
name and address of the person making the loan or
guarantee, the amount of the loan, the terms and
conditions under which the loan or guarantee was
given, the amount outstanding at the time of filing,
and whether or not a written loan agreement exists.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ noted that on page 21, "that $1,000 is
a different $1,000, but it's a loan, or loan guarantee increased
to $10,000." He asked Ms. Miles to explain the discrepancy.
MS. MILES replied that the reason that the commission felt it
shouldn't make the change under the legislative financial
disclosure [beginning] on page 20, line 8, was because that was
something that arose from recommendations from the legislative
ethics committee and not from the commission. She added,
"Although they did feel that the sources of income, as you can
see in [paragraph] (2), at line 1, ... should be increased."
Number 2795
LINDA MURPHY, Clerk, Kenai Peninsula Borough, announced that she
would be speaking to Sections 1 and 32 of the proposed CS. She
stated that she is concerned about the potential costs to
municipalities, particularly if there will be a requirement that
all municipalities who currently fall under the "add to" pay a
fee to the state, based on the full and true value of the
service provided by APOC. As an option, she asked the committee
to consider allowing municipalities to develop substantially
similar programs that they would administer in-house, rather
than paying a fee to APOC to administer those programs.
Number 2747
MS. MILES, in response to questions posed by Chair Weyhrauch,
confirmed that there is nothing that would prevent a
municipality from doing that, and that there is nothing that
requires a municipality to be subjected to this bill, unless it
opts in.
MS. MURPHY clarified that her concern resulted from hearing a
committee member previously state that he would like to take the
"opt out" provision out of the bill and require that all
municipalities file with APOC.
Number 2710
STEPHEN CONN, Special Projects Officer, Alaska Public Interest
Research Group (AkPIRG), told the committee that he is
testifying on behalf of (AkPIRG), in place of Steven Cleary and
Barbara Williams. He noted that Ms. Williams had submitted her
written testimony. He indicated that he is representing, in
this instance, "AkPIRG lobby," which he specified is a 501(c)(4)
entity. He told the committee that he would like to put the
bill in short-term historical context.
MR. CONN stated that the campaign finance law was passed by the
legislature under some duress, after an initiative had been
accepted for the ballot, and polls showed that 80 percent of the
public was in favor of that initiative. He opined that the
substantial changes now occurring to the campaign finance law
"go to the heart of an initiative that was wildly popular on a
bipartisan basis." He said he is especially concerned about the
[potential] ability of the lobbyists not only to guide funds,
but also to give funds to candidates outside of their district.
MR. CONN, turning to more recent history, noted that [HB 157]
first emerged as a proposal to eliminate APOC entirely and "to
lodge the records with the Department of Law." From an academic
standpoint, he said, it was a "frontal attack ... on a
bureaucracy." He stated that although he has the greatest
respect for the members of APOC at this point, it doesn't
surprise him that they have made proposals to raise the campaign
fee limits. He noted that this was done under some duress,
because for [APOC], it was a matter of survival.
Notwithstanding that, he opined that there is really no
explanation for the drastic increases in the fees. He added, "I
mean, the price of a haircut has not gone up tenfold."
MR. CONN stated that, from the preceding two standpoints, this
bill will not sit well with the public. He added that he is not
sure whether it will lead to another initiative or a deepening
cynicism in politics. He noted that several former Alaskans run
the Center for Responsive Politics, at the federal level, and
[that entity] has pointed out that incumbents do attract the big
money, and uncontested elections bound throughout the U.S. He
stated that he doesn't think that what "we" want and what [the
committee] wants is to see a stultified process peopled only by
professional politicians rather than newcomers. He stated,
"It's not the Alaskan way and it's not your way; it's not how
most of you got there."
Number 2507
MR. CONN stated that his own experience [has shown that] the
more byzantine world of politics and lobbyists exists at the
municipal and borough level, not at the state level. He added,
"That is truly a complex world that I've never been able to
fathom." He mentioned municipalities operating under severe
economic duress, especially with a proposal that is "said to be
forthcoming" related to sales tax. He noted that many
municipalities already survive on sales tax. He said, "To
encourage them to opt out and to make further mysterious their
process to their local voters does Alaska and does the principle
of local control little or no good."
MR. CONN said he hopes the committee will "give some pause to
these amazing increases in the limits," because they would drive
the political process into a much bigger money political process
than the one that the voters were prepared to revolt against
when they were prepared to except the campaign finance
initiative.
Number 2440
ANDREE McLEOD told the committee that she was a recent candidate
for state office for District 24 and has worked on several
campaigns. She prefaced her testimony by stating an assumption
that lobbyists are involved in campaigns, "whether they're
prohibited or not."
MS. McLEOD stated that she is concerned about raising the limits
on contributions and removing the prohibition of lobbyists. She
said it would enable certain individuals to amass power and
influence. She said she appreciates the time the committee is
taking to hear public testimony. She quoted an Indian
philosopher from the 3rd century.
Number 2352
MS. McLEOD referred to Chair Weyhrauch's previous remark
regarding his intent to increase the number of people who run
for public office. She opined that HB 157 would discourage
people from running for office. Raising the contribution
limits, she noted, will impact what in economics is referred to
as the limit prices, and it will increase the barriers to entry,
which results in less competition. She indicated that the power
taken away from the people will be given to the rich and the
"special moneyed interests."
MS. McLEOD referred to "strategic generosity," which she defined
as the ability to be flexible with wealth, to put it to work,
and to "win people's hearts." She noted that Louis XIV used
strategic generosity in his court, and she said she believes
lobbyists are doing the same thing today. She stated that it
has always been a great weapon in building a support base by
using money to "create more money with influence."
Number 2256
MS. McLEOD posited that the obvious result of HB 157 is
corruption and discrimination against those who are not able to
pay, which will not only undermine the democratic process, but
will undermine democracy itself. She added that it would widen
an already existing chasm between "us" and "them." In regard to
Mr. Conn's previous comment regarding whether this [legislation]
would bring cynicism, she opined that it would, because [the
committee] would not ensure the trust, respect, or confidence of
the people by passing [HB 157].
Number 2222
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to a letter, from Mike Frank
and David Finkelstein [of] Campaign Finance Reform Now!, dated
April 23, [2003] [included in the committee packet]. He said
the letter addressed Section 1 of an earlier work draft, dated
[4/18/2003], which [proposed] "deleting the authority of
municipalities to enact stricter campaign finance limitations."
He asked Ms. Miles if that "prohibition" has been deleted.
Number 2175
MS. MILES replied as follows:
In the earlier draft, it simply removed municipalities
from the oversight of the commission entirely. There
was no "opt in" or "opt out." And it did remove
language under current law, which permits ...
municipalities ... to, by ordinance, establish
stricter campaign disclosure provisions for their
municipality.
And so, it really wouldn't have removed that
possibility; it just took it away from APOC's
oversight.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG turned to Section 34. He asked Ms.
Miles to explain what is being repealed in this section.
MS. MILES offered her understanding that AS 15.13.072(d) and AS
15.13.072(g), [two of the three statutes that would be repealed
by Section 34], deal with legislative session "time-outs" that
were not upheld by the Alaska Supreme Court in the ACLU case
[State v. Alaska Civil Liberties Union, 978 P.2d 597 (Alaska
1999) cert. Denied, U.S., 120 S. Ct. 1156, 145 L. Ed. 2d 1069
(2000)]. She said, "Those are actually housekeeping measures.
The supreme court decision removed it from one section of law
and not the other two, leaving it very confusing for the reader;
however, APOC does not enforce them, upon formal advice from the
attorney general's office." She noted that AS 39.50.200(a)(G),
[the third statute that would be repealed by Section 34], is a
definition in the financial disclosure law that includes
municipal officials "in public officials." In response to a
question by Representative Gruenberg, she said that she needs to
double check to see if that statute should still be in [Section
34], "because that was when municipalities were being exempted,
rather than having the opportunity to opt in."
Number 2035
JAN DeYOUNG, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division
(Anchorage), Department of Law, offered a point of clarification
as follows:
That reference is to the Alaska Tourism Marketing
Council's executive director. [It] would make that
position covered in the public official financial
disclosure law. But that group is no longer ... a
public agency; that agency was repealed and that
function, as I understand it, has been contracted out.
So, that's a housekeeping measure.
Number 2005
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ clarified that the aforementioned
legislative "time-outs" are a ban on legislators' soliciting
funds during the legislative session. He asked if there is
anything that would prohibit [the legislature] from "making that
part of our uniform rules."
MS. MILES replied that what [would be] removed from the law is a
ban on all candidates who are not seated legislators.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ clarified that his point is that the
legislature can enforce stricter rules upon itself than might be
permissible "if we threw the net more broadly." He added, "And
we could lead by example by saying, 'No, it is inappropriate for
legislators to seek funds during a legislative session.'"
MS. MILES responded that the legislature already does so with
its Legislative Ethics Act, which includes a prohibition on
legislators accepting any contributions during the time that the
legislature is in regular or special session.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ explained that he had wanted to make
certain that that was going to remain the case.
Number 1955
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his understanding that the
supreme court [ruled] that non-legislators cannot be banned from
raising money during the session.
MS. MILES answered, "Correct."
MONA LISA DREXLER, Municipal Clerk, Fairbanks North Star
Borough, told the committee that she would address both Section
1 and the effective date of the bill. She stated one concern
she has regarding the bill as it currently stands is "the
opportunity for a borough, and municipalities within a borough,
to all have a set of different standards." She illustrated
that, in her community, the Fairbanks Northstar Borough could
have one set of standards, while the City of Fairbanks and the
City of North Pole could have two separate standards.
MS. DREXLER also stated her concern regarding the effective date
of July 1, 2003. She mentioned that there is a meeting in
August to put forward [an ordinance] on an October ballot. She
remarked that [the proposed effective date] would limit the time
to get a petition signed in order to place an issue on the
ballot.
MS. DREXLER requested "a copy of Ms. Miles' memo to the
committee, clarifying some of the areas of the act." She stated
it is her intent to continue looking at [the legislation] and to
submit written comments to the committee. In response to a
question by Representative Holm, she clarified that her concern
was in regard to the "opt in" and "opt out" part of the proposed
legislation. She said:
If a municipality wants to opt in, it must go to the
voters for them to approve ... doing the disclosure.
So, my concern is that July 1, 2003, if the
municipality does not do an ordinance to place before
the voters -- and quite frankly, the way I read this
bill is, is that [as] of July 1, 2003, we're out. And
until the voters approve opting in, in my municipal
election, the City of Fairbanks, City of North Pole,
and other municipal elections in the state - in
October - will be operating without a disclosure law.
Number 1821
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked Ms. Miles if Ms. Drexler's
interpretation was correct.
MS. MILES said yes. She noted that [APOC] held a teleconference
meeting yesterday, at which time this issue was discussed. She
said, "Should the legislature determine ... [to have]
municipalities opt in, or in some way pay for the service, then
we will need to be careful with that effective date, because ...
[the] October elections are upcoming." She informed the
committee that the commission is proceeding on its normal
course, preparing four municipal elections, sending out letters
to clerks regarding what offices are up for election, and
preparing the report forms and manuals for the 31 communities it
serves. She concluded, "But that is a problem area and was not
intentional."
MS. MILES, in response to a request voiced by both
Representative Seaton and Chair Weyhrauch, agreed to propose a
solution to this issue before the next committee meeting.
Number 1697
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if going back to the "opt out"
language, saying that if the community does not opt out it would
pay a fee, and having a delayed effective date for that
probation of, for example, January 1, 2005, would give everybody
enough time to do the job.
MS. MILES answered that she certainly believes that would give
everybody time to "deal with the question before them."
Number 1590
MATT DAVIDSON, Conservation Advocate, Alaska Conservation Voters
(ACV), told the committee members that he thinks their
discussion has been outstanding, in terms of the issue of
increasing campaign donation limits "across the board." He
opined that some of those [proposed] standards are absurdly
high, and would have the effect of squelching participation by
the public in campaigns.
MR. DAVIDSON expressed concern that there has not been
discussion by the committee regarding [Section 30], which
relates to disclosure of interests in businesses. He stated
that if legislators are working for a number of businesses
during their non-legislative time, they should be required to
disclose that relationship. He recommended that the committee
consider an amendment, because the public has the right to know
that these relationships exist [and legislators may be
supporting legislation related to their company]. He noted that
he would be submitting written testimony, as well.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked [Mr. Davidson] if he would
prepare an amendment He indicated that he [may possibly offer
it].
MR. DAVIDSON said he would be happy to.
Number 1425
SARAH GILBERTSON, Policy & Program Coordinator, Alaska Municipal
League (AML), asked that the committee consider the impact of HB
157 on municipalities. She stated that municipalities are
currently in trouble, as is the state. She cited reasons,
including cuts in revenue sharing and grants, for example. This
[legislation] would mean yet another cut and unfunded mandate.
She reminded the committee that the municipalities and the state
are linked; therefore, if a cut is made, sales and property
taxes go up at the local level and, ultimately, the committee
members' constituents are affected.
Number 1371
MS. GILBERTSON stated that information regarding HB 157 has been
difficult to come by. She requested a copy of [Ms. Miles'] memo
received by the committee, so that she could make it available
to the members of AML. She said she thinks it would also be
beneficial to know the amount of cost currently incurred by APOC
in administering to municipalities, in order to determine if
"this amount of work is a burden, both in time and personnel to
APOC." She added, "Or whether this language is just a revenue
generator for the state." She encouraged making an educated
decision along those lines.
Number 1313
MS. GILBERTSON turned to the subject of fees, and she stated
that it is not clear to her what those fees will be, or whether
they will be graduated based upon the population in a community,
for example. She said that it is also unclear where those funds
will go. She asked if they would go to the general fund, or
strictly towards providing services that the municipalities will
receive if the opt in.
Number 1253
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Ms. Gilbertson if AML would
prefer that Section 1 be deleted from the bill.
MS. GILBERTSON answered that AML has not yet come out with a
position on HB 157, because it has to go through a process
whereby its members would either vote to support or oppose a
bill. However, she noted that preliminary discussions with the
members of AML have shown they are concerned that "this would be
another unfunded mandate."
Number 1220
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM said that in many places around the state
clerks work for the administration of either the assembly, or of
the mayor's office, for example. He asked if there is any
concern about an "arms-length relationship between those who are
going to be the bosses thereof of those who are going to be
keeping control of the financing, and the possibilities of
improprieties."
MS. GILBERTSON deferred to Ms. Drexler.
Number 1165
MS. DREXLER, for purposes of clarification, asked "Is the
question, 'Would I have a concern - because of working for the
assembly - of monitoring that who might be my boss?'"
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM responded yes.
MS. DREXLER said she does not [have that concern]. In the
Fairbanks North Star Borough, she explained, she reviews all
ethics complaints. She stated that she does not have a concern
on this issue, as related to contributions and financial
disclosure.
Number 1088
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to Ms. Gilbertson's previous
mention of unfunded mandates, and he stated that he can see
where the municipalities want to know the fee structure before
they opt in. He pointed out that no municipality would be
required to [opt in] unless it looks at the fee schedule and
determines that it's appropriate. Therefore, he asked if he
missed something regarding [Ms. Gilbertson's concern over] the
unfunded mandate.
MS. GILBERTSON said she isn't sure and would have to look into
that. She revealed that she had heard from some of AML's
members that there would be some requirements that "they would
still have to administer, whether they're reporting or filing
requirements," and if they would still have to file, report, or
process those requirements, whether through APOC or not, than
that would be "another unfunded mandate." She told
Representative Seaton that she would double-check on that for
him.
Number 1008
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that he would be curious to know
what the level of support is for some of the other options that
exist. For example, to fly without any APOC cover in municipal
elections, or for the municipalities to create their own "local
APOC." He told Ms. Gilbertson that it would be helpful if she
would [counsel] AML's membership regarding those options.
Number 0981
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his understanding that the
definition of an unfunded mandate is an unfunded requirement.
He stated that this is not an unfunded mandate, because there is
no requirement.
MS. GILBERTSON said that she would double-check on that. She
noted that yesterday, in some preliminary discussions, some of
AML's members [expressed] concern that there may be, under
current law, some filings or "reportings" that they would still
have to process.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG compared this issue to a fishing
license. He said, "If you choose to do it, then you have to
pay the cost."
Number 0916
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ, regarding the example of the fishing
license, stated that the distinction is that everyone has to
have an election. In essence, he said, someone at some point is
going to have to bear the cost of ensuring an "APOC-like
creation," or "the cost of what happens when you don't have
one."
Number 0850
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH noted that Ms. Gilbertson had raised an issue
related to municipal actions. He stated that, as it sits now,
he supports the "opt in" as opposed to the "opt out" part.
Notwithstanding that, he said that it is probably worthwhile to
at least have some information regarding the costs that APOC
currently incurs. He asked Ms. Miles if she would provide that
information to the committee.
MS. MILES agreed to do so.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ added, "As well as the 31 communities
that currently ... are participating."
MS. MILES acquiesced.
Number 0799
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that public testimony is closed and
that HB 157 was heard and held.
HJR 4-CONST AM: 90 DAY LEGISLATIVE SESSION
Number 0726
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the next order of business was
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 4, Proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to the duration of
a regular session.
Number 0703
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HJR 4, Version 23-LS0178\D, Cook, 3/28/03,
as a work draft.
Number 0676
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for purposes of discussion.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH invited visiting students to come sit in the
committee room. He asked Representative Samuels to give a
summary of HJR 4 for their benefit.
Number 0600
REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SAMUELS, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
explained that HJR 4 would shorten the legislative session from
120 to 90 days in length. He noted that an argument against the
resolution says it would give more power to the executive
branch. He also noted that an argument supporting the
resolution is that it would save [the state] money and make [the
legislature] work more efficiently. In response to the comments
of Chair Weyhrauch, he confirmed that this type of resolution
has been introduced before and that the legislature, at one
time, was unlimited in its length.
Number 0490
SARAH NEILSON, Staff to Representative Ralph Samuels, in
response to a question from Chair Weyhrauch, confirmed that 1984
was the year in which the voters voted on a constitutional
amendment limiting the session to 120 days.
Number 0470
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS noted the following changes that would be
made to HJR 4 by Version D: the effective date, as shown on
page 2 of the CS; and a raise from 90 to 110 days [during the
first session year] when a new governor takes office, because
new commissioners and staff are hired.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked how [Version D] would treat a possible
situation where a governor serves more than one term, but not
consecutively.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS said that the intent would be to give 110
days to [a governor who returns to office, after a gap where
someone else served]. He clarified that 110 days would be given
every time there is a change of administration. A governor who
is re-elected consecutively would not get the 110 days.
Number 0194
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if there is a provision in
statute for special election of a governor. For example, what
would happen if a governor decided to take another position and
the lieutenant governor was elevated? Would there be a special
election?
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS said that he is not sure of the answer,
but guessed that there would be no special election, because the
lieutenant governor would become governor and would serve the
remainder of the term.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that when an incumbent governor
is running for re-election, in essence it [would] become a
campaign issue [if Version D was adopted], because the
legislative session [could] be shortened by re-electing the
incumbent governor.
Number 0115
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH referred to the previously stated example where
the lieutenant governor takes over. He asked if the session
after the session during which he/she had taken over would be 90
or 110 days.
Number 0051
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS said the 110 days would only apply to an
entirely new administration, not just a new governor. When a
lieutenant governor steps into the governor's position, all the
commissioners would remain the same.
TAPE 03-46, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if it wouldn't be cleaner to say, "There
was an election of governor. It's a new governor. Now it's 110
days."
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS noted that when an incumbent is running
for governor, no one [involved in the legislative session] would
know whether to make arrangements for 90 or 110 days. He
suggested that if the first session only was 110 days, whether
or not it's the incumbent who wins the gubernatorial race, he
said he still thinks that would accomplish the goal of the
legislative branch becoming more efficient.
Number 0148
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH stated that it is important to be as clear as
possible when addressing proposed changes to the constitution.
He pointed out that the word "election" is used [in Version D],
not the words "administration change".
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH proffered that inserting the word "immediately"
between "office" and "before", on page 2, line 3, would suit the
sponsor's intent.
Number 0260
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to the previous comments of
Representative Berkowitz regarding 110 days for a new governor
and 90 days for an incumbent. He said he thinks that would
build an inequity into the system. He offered the [Conceptual
Amendment 1] as follows:
Page 2, line 2, after "governor"
Delete "who was not serving in that office before the
election,"
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS said, "Yes, as long as, on line 4, you
put 'gubernatorial election'. ... Every time there's a
gubernatorial election, the first session after the election
would be 110 [days]." In response to a remark by Chair
Weyhrauch, he confirmed that it would not matter whether or not
the incumbent [won the race]. That way, he said, as
Representative Berkowitz pointed out, "it becomes a moot point
on the political issue during an election, during a campaign."
He added that that would probably be a smart way to go.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS, in response to the request of Chair
Weyhrauch, said he thought [the word "that" on page 2, line 4,
should be replaced by] "any gubernatorial".
Number 0480
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ commented on [subsection (b), on page 2
of Version D] as follows:
If you think a 90-day [session] ought to be the rule,
then 90 days ought to be the rule. And when you're
carving out exceptions, it's an acknowledgment that 90
days is an inadequate length of time. Different
administrations are going to come into power with --
well, I mean, some of them are going to lollygag
around, some of them are going to hit the ground
running, some of them are going to know exactly what
they're going to do, some of them aren't. But if
you're using 90 days as an incentive for the
legislature to get its act together, then the 90 days
ought to be considered an incentive for the governor -
whether it's a new governor, or an existing governor -
to get his or her administration together. And so, it
seems to me [subsection (b)] ought to be removed in
its entirety. If we're going to 90 days, let's go to
90 days - let's not pussyfoot around. You look at
what other states do; I don't think they make that
exception.
Number 0533
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS stated that he respectfully disagrees.
He continued as follows:
If you don't want it to become the political issue at
all, and you do not want to be hurrying either
ourselves or a new governor - and particularly a new
governor - ... the 100-day session ... gives everybody
a chance. As we all know, the entire job is based
around relationships - with each other, with the
administration, with the administration officials,
with the public - it's all based around relationships.
And that would give you a little bit more time, a
little bit more leeway to build the relationship with
what, in essence, is going to be an entire new cast of
characters.
Number 0588
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ responded that that would be true,
then, for the first session of any legislative period. He noted
that he has not served with any of [the committee members]
before. He asked, "Shouldn't I have the benefit of at least 110
days, assuming this wasn't a gubernatorial election, to get to
know you better ...?"
Number 0644
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH stated that it's a "philosophic point." He
brought the committee's attention back to Representative
Seaton's [Conceptual Amendment 1].
Number 0674
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said his recollection is that there is
no provision for a special election of a governor. If the
governor is unable to serve, the lieutenant governor serves, and
the lieutenant governor then designates a new person to be the
lieutenant governor, "if they step up."
Number 0752
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ replied that if there's a
constitutional flow from the governor to the lieutenant
governor, that's one thing, but if it's done statutorily,
there's always a possibility that statutes could change, in
which case there could be a special election to fill "a period
of a governor's seat." He said that that's why he thinks it
would be important "for us to have a definitive answer on that
front." He said when something is written in the constitution,
it's forever, whereas statutes change with 21 votes in the House
and 11 in the Senate. Regarding the constitution, he said he
thinks there are clear reasons to use concise language that is
universal in its application. He said, "We ought to be very
clear on this point about succession and whether it's done
statutorily or constitutionally."
Number 0824
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said he wonders in earnest how many of the
120 days in session are spent in at-ease periods, or
deliberately delaying a known outcome so "we can all stand up
and showboat on something." He said that perhaps limiting the
amount of time the legislature is in session would help solve
that problem.
Number 0892
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS, at the request of Chair Weyhrauch, read
[subsection (b)] as it would read with the proposed [Conceptual
Amendment 1], as follows:
(b) Notwithstanding (a) of this section, the first
regular session held after each gubernatorial election
is limited to one hundred ten consecutive calendar
days. The session may be extended as provided in (a)
of this section.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection to the motion
to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1. There being no objection,
Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH noted that Representative Gruenberg's objection
to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HJR 4,
Version 23-LS0178\D, Cook, 4/29/03, as a work draft, is still
pending.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew his objection. [Version D was
treated as adopted.]
Number 1025
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ moved to adopt Amendment 2 to delete
Section 2, [page 1, line 16 through page 2, line 5]. He said he
does not find the arguments for a 90-day session to be
compelling, but if it will be done for the legislature [it
should be done] for the governor. He said that the governor has
the ability to extend session and if that is done, "the onus
then is on the governor, not on the legislature." He continued
as follows:
We don't need to change or set up a different scheme.
When you do this, you deviate from one of, I think,
the basic rules of constitutions, which is: make
things as clean and simple as possible in the
constitution. Constitutions endure. This is one of
the reasons why I'm the most conservative person I
know in the legislature when it come to constitutional
amendments. I vote against every single one of them.
You don't mess with the constitution unless it's
absolutely necessary.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ opined that Section 2 makes the
resolution unclear; it muddles it with extra language. He said
that "some of these items can be done statutorily," including
the issue of a 90-day session.
[REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected.]
Number 1179
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM said that the governor is "here" for 12
months a year; therefore, a 90-day session would not have much
effect. He continued as follows:
I think that what we're trying to do here is to
facilitate a new governor being able to pick his
administrative aides, his commissioners, [et cetera].
And I'm not sure, in this case even, that ... we ...
want to speed that process up too much, and I think
what we're talking about here, if I'm not wrong with
Representative Samuels, is that we're trying to allow
the [legislature] to approve or disapprove of those
commissioners after [the governor has] had enough time
to ... create his own administration. So, I think
there may be a cause for this that has merit.
Number 1241
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that a number of states have varying
session length limits. He opined that the more constrained the
legislature is made, the more it will rely on a seniority system
and more structure, because the new legislators are not going to
have the time to become "fully up and running." He stated his
concern with the resolution, as well as [Amendment 2] is that
"we tend to put in a power structure and make it more effective,
the shorter you get to (indisc.)."
Number 1327
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH remarked that Article IX, Section 16, is one of
the most obtuse, unclear, and confusing articles in the [Alaska
State] Constitution that he has read.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Berkowitz and
Weyhrauch voted in favor of Amendment 2. Representatives Holm,
Seaton, Dahlstrom, Lynn, and Gruenberg voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 2 failed by a vote of 5-2.
Number 1443
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM moved to report HJR 4, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated an objection.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ spoke to his objection as follows: He
stated that [HJR 4] is a constitutional amendment that requires
a degree of seriousness that is not always accorded to bills.
He reminded the committee of the relationship of the Founding
Fathers to the constitution. The constitutional convention, he
noted, involved people who deliberated over the foundational set
of laws which guide "who we are and what we do." He said that
[HJR 4] might not seem "huge," in and of itself, but it is
completely unnecessary. He noted that if the legislature
chooses to conduct its business in such a way that it is done in
90 days, "that can happen."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ continued as follows:
And so, we're tinkering in the constitution, for what
reason? I've seen this resolution before us;
Democrats and Republicans do it. It's ... a tennis
ball ...; it plays back and forth. And nobody really
wants it, but everyone has to be supportive of it,
because it's popular. And that's not what the
constitution is about.
The whole foundation of the constitution is protecting
the rights of the minority, defending the ability of
people to stand up and say, "No." It's about the
separation of powers. And when you go to a 90-day
session ... constitutionally, what you're doing is
you're abdicating legislative responsibility to the
executive branch. That's wrong.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ reiterated that that choice shouldn't
be made just because it's popular. He noted that there are many
unpopular items in the constitution; people want to get rid of
certain things. He said the constitution should be protected.
He reiterated that there is no need to make a change, and
suggested that the legislature could even be done in 40 or 60
days. He added, "There's nothing that stops us, except for the
legislature's own machinations."
Number 1593
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ noted that he has worked in the Alaska
State Legislature for seven years under "super majorities" the
entire time. He indicated that super majorities are
"legislatures that should have been able to control the flow of
legislation, according to their own will and dictates." The
failure to do so is not a constitutional failure, he posited,
but is a failure of the people in the institution. He opined
that putting a constitutional stricture around [the legislation]
is unnecessary and ought to be rejected.
Number 1627
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH stated that he thinks the constitution is a
living, breathing document that reflects fundamental issues of
government, and is "of, by, and for the people." Without an
amendment like [HJR 4], he opined, the legislature will never -
emphasis on the word never - adjourn in a shorter period of
time. He indicated that even if [HJR 4] is moved out of the
House State Affairs Standing Committee, it will still undergo
passionate debate in [other House committees] and in the Senate,
and the issue will ultimately be brought before the public.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH pointed out that, under the provision of this
resolution, the legislature would have the ability to meet for
an extended time. He stated, "So, I see this ... as worthy of
further movement and discussion by the people."
Number 1699
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated, "I would just like to associate
myself with Representative Berkowitz's comments." Furthermore,
he noted that there is another branch of government, which is
the judiciary branch. The balance of power, he said, is a
delicate one. For a while, he noted, it became vogue to have
term limits. He remarked that in states such as California,
[term limits] decimated the balance of power, and have caused
extreme problems. He noted information regarding this issue
could be obtained through the Institute of Governmental Studies
at the University of California Berkley.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that some states hold legislative
session every other year, or have a budget session every other
year. He remarked that those are states with relatively weak
legislatures. He opined that Alaska, as a young state, needs to
have all its branches of government strong, particularly because
the legislature is the only branch that's voted on by the people
every two years. He said, "We are the popular branch, and we
are the popular House in the popular branch. And we are the
most responsible to the will of the people. And to emasculate
this branch in this House is a real upset to the balance of
power." He warned the legislature to think carefully before
tinkering with the balance of power. He said that [shorter
sessions] would have effects similar to the unicameral system
that was once in vogue, which are: fewer public debates; more
deals behind closed doors; more log jams; and less public input.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that he has great respect for
the maker of [HJR 4]. However, he said, "It's a slippery
slope." For example, 90 days [may become] 60 days. He
indicated that one result may be that the legislature meets for
a couple of days, then adjourns for a couple of weeks, and then
meets again, but "you're out of touch with the public." He
added, "This is not a good idea."
Number 1837
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS stated that [HJR 4] is not a partisan
issue in any form, because everyone realizes that there will be
different parties in power at various times. However, he said
that it's the nature of the beast that no matter how long the
legislative session is stretched, the time will be filled, and
the work will not be done until the very end. He indicated that
every legislator present - regardless of experience in office -
knows how busy he/she is currently, [compared to] the first six
weeks of session.
Number 1900
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the bill would not be moved
today, and he stated his intention to open public testimony at
the next hearing on [HJR 4].
Number 1910
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN opined that the previously stated comment
regarding the constitution being a living, breathing document is
more of a political philosophy than an established fact.
Number 1924
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ concurred. He noted that things do
happen in the first six weeks. The additional time [for
legislators] to get to know one another is one of things that
happens. He said he doesn't know that that's necessarily
critical, but he opined that there's other ways to solve the
problem. He stated that he understands the importance of having
a deadline at the end of a legislative session; that's when the
work happens. He added, "You'll be astounded at just how bad
and hard things go at the end." Representative Berkowitz
stated, "But we could also get to that same result statutorily.
We don't necessarily need to start on day one. Or we could
start on day one and take a 45-day break, if that's what the
legislature chose to do." He reiterated that the constitution
does not need to be changed in order to effect the change trying
to be made by [HJR 4].
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ remarked that many people wouldn't
change the state song, but are willing to change the
constitution.
Number 1978
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM stated that he would take Representative
Gruenberg's comment to mean that if the Alaska State Legislature
was in session all year long it would do better work. He opined
that Representative Samuels is absolutely correct that if some
kind of limits are not in place, [the legislature] could abuse
the system at will. Regarding the long discussion of bills, he
said it is a good and necessary process; however, at some point
in time it gets redundant, and he thinks [the legislature] could
certainly be more efficient in its work. He said he thinks that
is what Representative Samuels is "trying to get at here."
Number 2035
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that, with the motion and objection
still pending, HJR 4 would be held over.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 2043
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 10:09
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|