05/08/2003 08:07 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
May 8, 2003
8:07 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."
- MOVED CSHB 157(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 230
"An Act relating to political signs on private property."
- 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."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 9
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to an appropriation limit and a spending limit.
- MOVED CSHJR 9(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 14
Relating to urging that the 2006 National Veterans Wheelchair
Games be held in Anchorage, Alaska.
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
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
03/11/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/11/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/12/03 0522 (H) FN1: ZERO(GOV) RECEIVED
03/12/03 0522 (H) FN2: (ADM) RECEIVED
03/12/03 0522 (H) FN3: (ADM) RECEIVED
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
04/29/03 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(STA)
05/01/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
05/01/03 (H) Heard & Held -- Recessed to
Mon. 5/5 8:00 AM --
MINUTE(STA)
05/05/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
05/05/03 (H) Heard & Held <Meeting
Continued at 7:54 PM Tonight>
MINUTE(STA)
05/07/03 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
05/07/03 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed> --
Recessed to a call of the
Chair --
05/08/03 1474 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) FORTHCOMING
3DP 3NR 1AM
05/08/03 1474 (H) DP: SEATON, LYNN, WEYHRAUCH;
NR: HOLM,
05/08/03 1474 (H) DAHLSTROM, GRUENBERG; AM:
BERKOWITZ
05/08/03 1474 (H) FN1: ZERO(GOV)
05/08/03 1474 (H) FN2: (ADM)
05/08/03 1474 (H) FN3: (ADM)
05/08/03 1479 (H) JUD REFERRAL WAIVED
05/08/03 1479 (H) REFERRED TO FINANCE
05/08/03 (H) JUD AT 3:30 PM CAPITOL 120
05/08/03 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed> --
Recessed to a call of the
Chair --
05/08/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 230
SHORT TITLE:POLITICAL SIGNS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)HOLM
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/31/03 0713 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/31/03 0713 (H) TRA, STA
04/29/03 (H) TRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 17
04/29/03 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(TRA)
05/06/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
05/06/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard --
Recessed to 5:30 PM --
05/06/03 (H) TRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 17
05/06/03 (H) Moved CSHB 230(TRA) Out of
Committee -- Recessed to a
call of the Chair --
05/06/03 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
05/07/03 1386 (H) TRA RPT CS(TRA) 4DP 2NR
05/07/03 1386 (H) DP: OGG, KOOKESH, FATE, HOLM;
05/07/03 1386 (H) NR: KOHRING, MASEK
05/07/03 1387 (H) FN1: ZERO(DOT)
05/07/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
05/07/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
05/08/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 149
SHORT TITLE:LOBBYING BY NONPROFITS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)WOLF
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/05/03 0395 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/05/03 0395 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
03/05/03 0395 (H) REFERRED TO STATE AFFAIRS
04/17/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/17/03 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed to
4/24/03>
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
04/29/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
05/01/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
05/01/03 (H) Heard & Held -- Recessed to
Mon. 5/5 8:00 AM --
MINUTE(STA)
05/07/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
05/07/03 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(STA)
05/08/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HJR 9
SHORT TITLE:CONST AM: APPROPRIATION/SPENDING LIMIT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)STOLTZE
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/31/03 0102 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/31/03 0102 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
02/11/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/11/03 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(STA)
03/28/03 0687 (H) COSPONSOR(S): ROKEBERG
04/04/03 0797 (H) W&M REFERRAL ADDED BEFORE STA
04/09/03 (H) W&M AT 7:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE
519
04/09/03 (H) Heard & Held
04/09/03 (H) MINUTE(W&M)
04/17/03 (H) W&M AT 7:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE
519
04/17/03 (H) Heard & Held
04/17/03 (H) MINUTE(W&M)
04/24/03 (H) W&M AT 7:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE
519
04/24/03 (H) Heard & Held
04/24/03 (H) MINUTE(W&M)
04/29/03 (H) W&M AT 7:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE
519
04/29/03 (H) Heard & Held -- Location
Change --
04/29/03 (H) MINUTE(W&M)
04/30/03 (H) W&M AT 8:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE
519
04/30/03 (H) Heard & Held
04/30/03 (H) MINUTE(W&M)
05/02/03 1271 (H) W&M RPT CS(W&M) NT 3DP 2NR
2AM
05/02/03 1271 (H) DP: HEINZE, WHITAKER, HAWKER;
05/02/03 1271 (H) NR: MOSES, GRUENBERG; AM:
KOHRING,
05/02/03 1271 (H) WILSON
05/02/03 1271 (H) FN1: (GOV)
05/02/03 (H) W&M AT 7:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE
519
05/02/03 (H) Moved CSHJR 9(W&M) Out of
Committee
MINUTE(W&M)
05/06/03 (H) JUD AT 5:30 PM CAPITOL 120
05/06/03 (H) <Pending Referral> -- Meeting
Canceled --
05/06/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
05/06/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard --
Recessed to 5:30 PM --
05/06/03 (H) STA AT 5:30 PM CAPITOL 102
05/06/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
05/07/03 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
05/07/03 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed> --
Recessed to a call of the
Chair --
05/07/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
05/07/03 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(STA)
05/08/03 1465 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) NT 3DP 3NR
05/08/03 1465 (H) DP: SEATON, LYNN, DAHLSTROM;
05/08/03 1465 (H) NR: GRUENBERG, HOLM,
WEYHRAUCH
05/08/03 1466 (H) FN1: (GOV)
05/08/03 1466 (H) REFERRED TO JUDICIARY
05/08/03 (H) JUD AT 3:30 PM CAPITOL 120
05/08/03 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed> --
Recessed to a call of the
Chair --
05/08/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
TODD LARKIN, Staff
to Representative Jim Holm
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 230.
ANDREE McLEOD
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 230, expressed
concern with regard to the enforcement provisions for vandalism
to political signs on private property.
MICHAEL DOWNING, Director/Chief Engineer
Division of Statewide Design & Engineering Services
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered the department's perspective on HB
230.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY WOLF
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as the sponsor of HB 149.
GINGER BLAISDELL, Staff
to Representative John Stoltze
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke on behalf of the sponsor of HJR 9.
TAMMY KEMPTON, Regulation of Lobbying
Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC),
Department of Administration
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 157.
DAVID FINKELSTEIN, Volunteer
Campaign Finance Reform Now
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 157.
ANDREE McLEOD
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 157.
JAMES CANTOR, Assistant Attorney General
Transportation Section
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 230, answered
questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-57, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR BRUCE WEYHRAUCH called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:07 a.m. Representatives
Weyhrauch, Holm, Seaton, Dahlstrom, and Gruenberg were present
at the call to order. Representatives Lynn and Berkowitz
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 157-ELIMINATE APOC
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the first order of business would
be 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 0264
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt CSHB 157, Version 23-
GH1090\H, Craver, 5/7/03, as the working document. There being
no objection, Version H was before the committee.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that HB 157 would be set aside.
[HB 157 was taken up again later in this meeting.]
HB 230-POLITICAL SIGNS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 230, "An Act relating to political signs on
private property."
Number 0409
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM moved to adopt CSHB 230(TRA) as the working
document. There being no objection, it was before the
committee.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM, speaking as the sponsor of HB 230, provided
the following testimony:
The ability of citizens to express their political
opinion, even to advocate for the same, is a
fundamental right. This basic right has become even
more pronounced when the expression is made on one's
own private property. Currently, the state law
prohibits the posting of campaign or political signs
within road view or 660 feet, whichever is greater.
This applies to federally funded roads and state
roads. The restriction includes private property and
if you and I were to erect a "No War in Iraq" or
"Support Our Troops" sign today, within the distance
limits, we would be in violation of state law even
though we're electing to utilize our own private words
and political free speech. It has been interpreted to
say that without sign restriction, political or
otherwise, that Alaska may lose federal highway funds
by being out of compliance with the restrictions that
the Federal Highway [Administration (FHWA)] program
puts upon the state of Alaska. The [FHWA] ... on this
subject, however, shows that this untrue. We had a
letter in the packet that is from the FHWA and relates
to that misinformation.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM explained that he introduced HB 230 because
during the last campaign and prior campaigns, the Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF) wasn't consistent
with its application of rulings or decisions regarding whether
it was inappropriate for folks to have political signs on their
private property. Those who placed a political sign on their
private property that could be seen from public property were
considered to be in violation. However, the accusations were
that the candidate was breaking the law in these cases.
Representative Holm said he felt that it was inappropriate that
folks were getting their First Amendment rights trampled on by
DOT&PF. He noted that in the House Transportation Standing
Committee the legislation was changed in order to help DOT&PF be
capable of taking care of problems so as not to clutter Alaska's
landscape.
Number 0719
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH directed attention to page 2, lines 16-17. He
surmised that this legislation is talking about political signs
for which most candidates would use a 4X8 piece of plywood,
which would amount to 32 feet.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM pointed out that he didn't want tons of
signs to be put together to make one large billboard, which lead
to the definition specifying that co-joined signs can't be
greater than 32 feet.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN commented that one might as well not put up
a sign 600 feet from public view, depending upon the
configuration of the lot. Representative Lynn turned attention
to the letter from Andree McLeod, which is included in the
committee, and asked if HB 230 addresses sign vandalism.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM replied no.
Number 0893
TODD LARKIN, Staff to Representative Jim Holm, Alaska State
Legislature, explained that sign vandalism wasn't addressed in
HB 230, although the civil remedy for sign vandalism already
exists. Therefore, to give DOT&PF enforcement of sign vandalism
seemed redundant.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM told the committee that one of the
difficulties in making the choice to enter politics is choosing
to go against the opponent who is in power. If the ability of
people to, in a less costly manner, get their message out is
hindered, the incumbent has a large advantage. Therefore, in
order to encourage folks to enter the system and be part of the
process, it should be as easy as possible.
Number 1045
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out that one can have private
property in a right-of-way, but the individual still owns the
property. He noted that in his area great care has been taken
to keep everything out of the state right-of-way. Therefore, he
asked if Representative Holm would accept a friendly amendment
specifying that signs may not be in the state right-of-way.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM directed attention to page 2, line 19. He
noted that he has rights-of-way that go over his property, for
which he has given easements to various portions of the
government; however, that only means he must allow access to the
property. Furthermore, the aforementioned shouldn't deny his
ability for political free speech with political signs so long
as those signs don't obstruct traffic.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON expressed concern with using a subjective
definition regarding whether a political sign obstructs,
interferes, or confuses [traffic] versus not allowing signs in
the known distance of a right-of-way.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM recalled the recent passage of the
legislation dealing with memorials and the consideration given
regarding whether memorials should be allowed in the public
right-of-way. The majority who voted for the memorial
legislation determined that it was appropriate [to allow
memorials in the public right-of-way]. Since the signs being
discussed today would only be in place during the political
season, he said he believes it's appropriate to allow political
free speech.
MR. LARKIN commented that this legislation is quite timid in
asking the state to recognize this right on private property.
He pointed out that the committee packet should include a
supreme court case that addresses "traditional forums." The
court found that it's unconstitutional to prohibit this type of
[political] free speech in many types of public rights-of-way
such as public sidewalks. However, HB 230 only speaks to the
use of signs on private property. With regard to the 50 foot
right-of-way, DOT&PF already views that as owned property and as
this legislation stands a sign can't be placed in that 50 feet
of right-of-way. Therefore, he didn't believe there would be
the desire to include something that specifically prohibits a
[constitutional] right.
Number 1399
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked that he likes HB 230, which
addresses a really important issue. He asked whether the
[committee] should "beef up" the findings to discuss free
expression or whether the legislation should be expanded. He
related his belief that many Alaskans strongly agree with the
right of free speech and protecting it constitutionally as well
as statutorily.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON expressed concern that the language
speaking to the right-of-way isn't clear. Although on page 1,
line 13, the legislation specifies that outdoor advertising may
not be erected within 660 feet of the nearest right-of-way, the
"added sections" aren't clear. He emphasized that he wanted the
provision to be clear in order to avoid each individual
candidate approaching DOT&PF to understand the provision.
Number 1624
ANDREE McLEOD paraphrased from her written testimony, which read
as follows:
I've been a victim of political campaign sign
vandalism. Fortunately, one of my perpetrators was
caught and his accomplice is still officially
unidentified. Justice has yet failed to penalize
these people and I'm left to wonder how someone can be
caught vandalizing campaign signs without remedy to
the victim.
So, can you please explain where the enforcement
provisions are relating to violations of these new
political signs on private property laws you're about
to put on the books? There's no objection to this
bill, but where are the safeguards and protections?
What are the fines for violating the political signs
on private property laws? If you have basic and
inherent laws, you also have to have penalties in
place to deter the miscreants in our society from
violating those laws. Could you please clarify as to
the whereabouts of these remedies.
MS. McLEOD acknowledged the previous testimony specifying that
civil remedies already exist. However, she informed the
committee that she has been going through the process that is
available to her and her case has languished in the municipal
prosecutor's office. She said she wasn't sure if her case has
to do with the mutual support between the perpetrators and the
current mayor of Anchorage, as evidenced by their APOC reports.
Currently, the ombudsman is reviewing whether there are remedies
because it seems the municipal prosecutor can't find any.
"What's the sense in putting laws on the books when you can't
enforce them," she asked.
Number 1789
MICHAEL DOWNING, Director/Chief Engineer, Division of Statewide
Design & Engineering Services, Department of Transportation &
Public Facilities, explained that the right-of-way functions
fall under the division he supervises. He turned to the issue
regarding how DOT&PF manages the right-of-way and how it would
treat a sign in the right-of-way if the right-of-way included an
easement on private property and the underlying fee owner was a
private property owner. Mr. Downing explained that DOT&PF holds
that all of the highway right-of-way is managed in the same way;
that is, DOT&PF has management and control of those lands. The
aforementioned has been contested and it has been supported.
Therefore, Mr. Downing related that DOT&PF feels it is in a
position to manage the highway right-of-way and these signs
would be prohibited in the highway right-of-way, under the
current language of the legislation. He specified that the
department would treat anything within the boundaries of a
right-of-way the same. He noted that the state's right-of-way
is a patchwork quilt of ownership.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM said that HB 230 was drafted in the hope
that it was in concert with the department because there was no
intent to effect the department's ability to protect the public.
Representative Holm surmised that the department doesn't have
any problem with a sign that is within 50 feet or 660 feet [of
the right-of-way] unless federal funding is impacted.
MR. DOWNING answered that is correct. The department sees a
distinction between the highway right-of-way and the private
property that is adjacent. The federal Outdoor Advertising Ban
and the Federal Highway Beautification Act of 1965 do address
the lands that are adjacent out to 660 feet. That prohibition
on outdoor advertising in that area extends to signs farther out
that are intended to be read from the highway. However, the
area beyond the 660 feet gets into private property and [the
department] views it differently as does the statutes.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON surmised, "Well, I'm hearing that ... the
federal law encompasses this further difference that ... DOT is
working within the right-of-way and management within the right-
of-way." However, Representative Seaton said he wanted to
ensure that the legislation is clear so that when the statute is
read the same answer will be apparent to all.
Number 2040
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if DOT would have a problem if signs
were permitted in the right-of-way.
MR. DOWNING answered, "It would be a much greater concern to
us." Furthermore, he related his belief that the FHWA would
change its position if advertising was allowed within the right-
of-way. He suggested that perhaps the addition of a provision
specifying "private property exclusive of rights-of-way granted
for transportation." Although the department thinks the matter
is clear now, he recommended speaking with Jim Cantor, Assistant
Attorney General, because he has dealt with a case directly
related to this issue.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON interjected that his problem is that he
called three different folks in DOT&PF and received three
different answers. Therefore, the matter isn't clear.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH related that [political] signs along the [right-
of-way] in Juneau are taken down by the state within 24-hours.
However, in Anchorage there are many signs in the right-of-way.
Number 2169
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM corrected Mr. Downing's testimony by
pointing out that there is a difference between free speech and
advertising. He said he didn't want free speech and advertising
to be treated the same, and therefore this legislation arose.
He noted that the two are treated the same under the Federal
Highway Beautification Act of 1965.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG characterized this as
"constitutionally, a real moving target issue." In fact, a very
important case, the "Nike shoe case", was recently argued in the
U.S. Supreme Court and is under advisory. This case deals with
commercial free speech and the extent of protection there. He
predicted that the ramifications of that case will spill over
into the [political signage] issues.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON requested that Mr. Downing contact the
attorney he mentioned in order to pursue some sort of clarifying
language similar to what he suggested.
MR. DOWNING answered yes.
Number 2265
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to AS 19.25.075,
which was the result of a 1998 ballot measure. He pointed out
that the statutory findings are there, although normally
statutory findings are placed in the uncodified law. Therefore,
it seems that the findings in HB 230 would be placed in [AS
19.25].075 in order to illustrate that they are as important.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM said that would be fine.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed interest in visiting with
Representative Holm and his staff to explore whether this
legislation would be used as a reaffirmation of free expression.
Number 2389
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN noted that he didn't want to abandon the
concern brought up regarding vandalism. He related his view
that there are different types of vandalism and that vandalism
on a political sign is vandalism against free speech. He
expressed the need to address the issue of vandalism before this
legislation moves from the committee.
MR. DOWNING pointed out that [CSHB 230(TRA)] still has some
items that are somewhat undefined, and therefore there will need
to be some definition for them eventually. Therefore, he
requested some refinement with the terms "temporary" and
"currently relevant". Although there is some reluctance to
become too specific in statute, eventually there has to be a
specific [definition] that will either be made with the
department's policy and regulation or in statute. He indicated
that placing the [definition] in statute would provide
consistency.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM highlighted that in the court cases
referenced in the committee packet one can see that there are
some specific regulations put in place by various cities and
those regulations speak to the lack of constitutionality of
placing time limits. The aforementioned is why the legislation
was written as it is.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH summarized that three issues have arisen:
enforcement issues, free speech, and right-of-way issues. He
requested that Representative Holm work with the members on
these issues. He then set aside HB 230.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG requested a copy of the opinion [from
the department's attorney] as well as any suggested amendments.
[HB 230 was taken up later in the meeting.]
HB 149-LOBBYING BY NONPROFITS
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the next order of business would
be 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." [Before the committee is Version 23-LS0354\H,
which had been amended at the previous meeting. Although this
document is entitled and referred to as a sponsor substitute, it
was not officially such and thus the document only exists in the
committee packet.]
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH reminded the committee that at the last hearing
Mr. Briggs with the Disability Law Center of Alaska had offered
an amendment for the committee to consider.
Number 2648
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY WOLF, Alaska State Legislature, spoke as
the sponsor of HB 149. With regard to the amendment proposed at
the previous hearing, Representative Wolf related that the
amendment would [achieve the intent of the legislation] save one
matter. Therefore, he suggested an amendment to Mr. Briggs'
amendment such that the change of "$500" to "$2,000" on page 2,
line 1, would not be changed and thus the amount would remain at
"$500". Representative Wolf explained that Mr. Briggs'
amendment would still result in [the requirement] for lobbying
efforts of 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations to be published in
a newspaper. Furthermore, these organizations would still
provide disclosure for their contributors.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH clarified that at the prior hearing two
amendments to Version H were adopted. Now, Mr. Briggs'
amendment, Amendment 3, is before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG surmised that Representative Wolf had
no problem with the first page of Amendment 3.
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF replied no.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH clarified that Amendment 3 is the handwritten
amendment.
Number 2792
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved that the committee adopt the
first page of Amendment 3, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
At page 1, line 2:
Delete "public"
At page 1, lines 2-3:
Delete "and an annual report of lobbying
expenditure to the Department of Revenue"
At page 1, line 8:
Delete ", annual report"
At page 1, line 9:
Delete "public"
At page 1, lines 11-13:
Delete "a copy of the newspaper's certificate of
publication with a copy of the notice published and
the dates of publication within seven days after the
last publication of the notice"
and
Insert "written evidence of satisfaction of this
section."
At page 1, line 13:
Delete "public"
There being no objection, it was so ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved that the committee adopt the
first item [on the second page] of Amendment 3, which read:
At page 1, lines 13-14:
Delete "is required to" and "publication"
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said he didn't believe there is any objection to
that. [Therefore, the above amendment to Amendment 3 was
treated as adopted.]
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if Representative Wolf would be
willing to change the "$500" to "$1,000".
TAPE 03-57, SIDE B
Number 2979
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG related that he is trying to make this
reasonable from the nonprofits' point of view.
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF said that the last thing he wants to do is
inhibit 501(3)(c) [nonprofits], and therefore he announced that
he would accept "$1,000" as a friendly amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered an amendment [to the second
item on page 2 of Amendment 3], which would change the "$500" to
"$1,000" rather than "$2,000". Therefore, it would read as
follows:
Page 2, line 1,
Delete "$500"
Insert "$1,000"
There being no objection, it was so ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered the remainder of page 2 [of
Amendment 3], which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
At page 2, line 4; after "specificity, the"
Insert "lobbying"
At page 2, lines 4-5:
Delete "proposed, the proposed budget, the
location, and the time period in which the lobbying
activity has occurred or will occur;"
Insert "conducted, that has been either"
At page 2, line 6:
Delete "(2) of the notice"
Insert "(i) published"
At page 2, lines 6-7:
Delete "; (3)"
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG then directed attention to the
following portion of the remainder of page 2 of Amendment 3:
Page 2, lines 4-5:
Delete "proposed, the proposed budget, the
location, and time period in which the lobbying
activity has occurred or will occur;"
Insert "conducted, that has been either"
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that the language being inserted
doesn't make sense in the sentence.
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF pointed out that it would read "that has
been either published not fewer than [two] times in eight days".
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that he had no objection to that,
but he asked if Representative Wolf would accept changing the
language to refer to once in eight days.
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF noted his agreement to once in eight days.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved that the committee adopt another
amendment [to Amendment 3, which replaces the portion of page 2
of Amendment 3 that refers to page 2, lines 4-5], as follows:
Page 2, lines 4-6:
Delete "proposed, the proposed budget, the
location, and time period in which the lobbying
activity has occurred or will occur;
(2) of the notice not fewer than two times in
eight days;"
Insert "the lobbying activity that has been
published"
There being no objection, the above amendment [to Amendment 3]
was adopted.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that HB 149 would be set aside.
[HB 149 was taken up later in this meeting.]
HJR 9-CONST AM: APPROPRIATION/SPENDING LIMIT
[Contains discussion of HJR 26.]
Number 2720
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 9, Proposing amendments to the
Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to an appropriation
limit and a spending limit.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH noted that before the committee is CSHJR 9(W&M).
He further noted that two amendments have been offered to the
committee.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved that the committee adopt Amendment
1, which read as follows:
Page 1, line 2, following "limit":
Insert "and a spending limit"
Page 2, add a new section to read:
"(c) If appropriations for a fiscal year exceed
the amount that may be appropriated under (a) and (b)
of this section, the governor shall reduce
expenditures by the executive branch for its
operations and administration to the extent necessary
to avoid spending more than the amount that may be
appropriated under (a) and (b) of this section."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH pointed out that the first change encompassed in
Amendment 1 is a title change.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that this resolution would
implement a constitutional spending cap. However, the problem
is that the legislature appropriates and can, and consistently
does ignore the constitution in its appropriations. For
example, the legislature is supposed to appropriate one-third of
all its expenditures for capital projects, but the legislature
has consistently ignored that. Therefore, in order to have a
true spending limit, a mechanism must be built in. The new
subsection (c) that Amendment 1 would add directs the governor
to use the line item veto to reduce spending within the
administrative branch in order to maintain the appropriation
cap. This language merely directs the governor to use the
authority that he/she already has.
Number 2578
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM asked whether it's appropriate for the
legislature to demand, in statute, that the governor use power
that he already has and can use at his/her prerogative.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON related his belief that it is appropriate.
He explained that the legislature isn't saying it wants a
spending cap, it's the people of the state who want a spending
cap, one that is real and enforceable. Therefore, this
[resolution] would require that the legislature not appropriate
more than a certain amount of money and if it does, then the
governor would be directed to lower those expenditures with the
line item veto power the governor already has.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM noted his agreement with the premise of [the
amendment]. He acknowledged that this has grown from the fact
that former legislatures and governors haven't lived up to the
constitutional mandates of balanced budgets. However, he
questioned why one would believe it would happen by merely
adding this provision to the constitution.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that the requirement to spend
one-third of the budget on capital projects is a requirement on
the legislature. He said if the people of Alaska want to direct
the governor to exercise authority, that's different than
leaving it to the governor to decide whether he/she should
override the legislature when the legislature fails to do its
job.
Number 2434
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH pointed out that there is clearly tension
between the legislative and executive branches, which is the
nature of the system. Currently, the legislature is binding
itself to appropriations. Without proposed subsection (c), the
governor would still be able to exercise his/her line item veto
prerogative to maintain the governor's constitutional
responsibility to uphold the constitution. In so doing the
governor could specify that the veto is mandated by the
restrictions on the legislature and its appropriations.
Therefore, the proposed subsection (c) wouldn't be necessary
because [the line item veto] would be inherent in the governor's
constitutional responsibility to uphold and defend the
constitution.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that the above would mean that the
governor is taking over and the governor, in lieu of the
legislature, is going to be the appropriating authority.
Representative Seaton highlighted that this resolution deals
with appropriations and it attempts to create a spending limit
on the legislature. However, the governor has the authority to
actually make expenditures. Representative Seaton specified
that he didn't want the governor to have to delve into the
appropriation business, which is the section that the resolution
addresses. The intent, he related, is to specify that the
governor is to exercise his/her spending authority to stay
within the appropriation limit placed on the legislature.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked whether Representative Seaton believes
Amendment 1 would give the governor more authority over the
legislature than currently exists in the constitution.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON replied no. Although Representative
Seaton acknowledged that the governor has line item veto power
without the adoption of Amendment 1, he specified that the
governor doesn't have direction to have a spending limit.
Without Amendment 1, the governor would have to determine that
the legislature violated its appropriation limit and would have
to enter into an appropriations process rather than being
directed by the people to exercise the governor's veto authority
to the extent a spending cap is desired.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH surmised that Representative Seaton viewed [the
proposed subsection (c)] as the "hammer."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON agreed. Without [the proposed subsection
(c)], the legislature, if it so desires, will ignore the
spending cap. With this language, the legislature will know
that it will have to constrain the appropriations into the
constitutional limit put in place or the governor will use the
line item veto authority to [cap] spending.
Number 2225
GINGER BLAISDELL, Staff to Representative John Stoltze, Alaska
State Legislature, spoke on behalf of the sponsor of HJR 9. Ms.
Blaisdell said she may be able to provide a practical example in
which the legislature may intend to keep their appropriations
within the appropriation limit, but when the accountants read
the language and interpret how the money is used, it may
actually exceed the appropriation limit. She pointed out that
this happens every year in the difference between the inactive
budget in the fiscal summary and the authorized number, which is
typically the larger number. In fiscal year (FY03), the enacted
budget is $3,399.4 million while the FY03 actual authorized
budget, which is done on July 1st after everything has been
interpreted and balances of funds have carried forward, was
$3,495.9 million. Therefore, there was a $90 million
difference. The aforementioned may be an instance in which this
instruction to adjust the appropriation would come into effect.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked that the difference in the
amounts may have been because of previously appropriated funds
that hadn't lapsed.
MS. BLAISDELL replied no and explained that there has to be
specific language in each fiscal year's appropriation measure
that would allow lapsing money to carry forward, remain in a
fund, or be deposited back into the general fund.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG interjected that he was referring to
capital projects that go for five years, which may be in the
[actual authorized budget] figure.
MS. BLAISDELL replied no and explained that capital projects are
only accounted for at the time of appropriation. She said that
the $90 million difference could be due to [anti-lapse] language
in the bill.
Number 2080
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG returned to [Amendment 1] with which he
saw two different problems. As written, this might be read by a
court to give the governor the authority to unilaterally reduce
[the budget] without the legislature being able to override a
line item veto. Therefore, in order to preserve the balance of
power, Representative Gruenberg said [Amendment 1] would have to
be amended to state that "using his line item veto he shall
reduce". Without the aforementioned language, the legislature
would have no right to override [the governor's line item veto].
Furthermore, these constitutional provisions are read
differently than statute; constitutional provisions are written
very sparingly. Representative Gruenberg recommended that a
letter of intent from the legislature specifying the
legislature's intent that specific language appear in the voter
pamphlet would be appropriate because it would become a key part
of the legislative history of the constitutional amendment. The
courts almost always look to the language that's in the voter
pamphlet as the main legislative history of a constitutional
amendment. He asked if Representative Seaton would consider the
aforementioned approach.
Number 1899
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH inquired as to Representative Seaton's thoughts
if subsection (c) read as follows:
"(c) If appropriations for a fiscal year exceed the
amount that may be appropriated under (a) and (b) of
this section, the governor shall reduce expenditures
by line item veto."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said the problem with the above language
is that [the legislature] doesn't want to tell the governor to
reduce the judiciary or the legislative branch. There could be
a problem with budgetary crossover between the three branches of
government.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH pointed out, "If you don't want to do the
legislative branch, you're binding them to the executive
branch."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON specified that it means everything within
the state that's not in the executive or legislative branch.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH proposed then that subsection (c) read as
follows:
"(c) If appropriations for a fiscal year exceed the
amount that may be appropriated under (a) and (b) of
this section, the governor shall reduce expenditures
in the executive branch by line item veto."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked that he believes this will
cause more problems than it will solve.
Number 1820
MS. BLAISDELL recalled this being brought up in the House
Special Committee on Ways and Means when Tam Cook, Director,
Legislative Research and Services, was asked whether the
legislature would maintain the power of veto. Ms. Cook said
that this is clearly direction to the governor to not spend
money that hasn't been appropriated. Therefore, she didn't
believe this would be interpreted as a veto issue.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted agreement, and related that the
way [Amendment 1] is written now, it would divest the
legislature of any right to override.
MS. BLAISDELL corrected Representative Gruenberg by saying that
was the response to adding this language back. Ms. Blaisdell
recalled that Ms. Cook had suggested that if HJR 9 or a version
of it were to pass, the legislature may need to introduce
statutory language setting legislative standards with regard to
how the governor would reduce spending.
Number 1735
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM asked if Representative Stoltze is
comfortable with Amendment 1.
MS. BLAISDELL replied yes.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recalled that Ms. Cook said the
legislature would set the standards. However, Ms. Cook didn't
directly say whether the legislature, under this, would retain
any authority to veto. Representative Gruenberg said that he
didn't believe the legislature would retain any authority to
veto. If the legislature doesn't have any authority to veto, he
noted that he would have serious legal questions regarding
whether the legislature would have any authority to set
standards.
Number 1639
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON announced that he would accept, as a
friendly amendment, Chair Weyhrauch's suggestion that subsection
(c) read as follows:
"(c) If appropriations for a fiscal year exceed the
amount that may be appropriated under (a) and (b) of
this section, the governor shall reduce expenditures
by the executive branch by line item veto."
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN related his understanding that the governor
could do a line item veto for anything.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH agreed and pointed out that the proposed
subsection (c) eliminates a lot of language.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON interjected that with the approval of this
[constitutional] amendment the people would direct the governor
to use the line item veto to keep within the spending limit.
Number 1516
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG continued to urge that the intent
[expressed in Chair Weyhrauch's friendly amendment] be related
in a letter of intent. Politically, if this is in the
constitution, those who don't like the [friendly] amendment will
seize on this portion. These folks will make the argument that
this language will insulate the [legislature] from charges of
excessive spending. Under current constitutional law, the
governor can veto some legislative expenditures if the governor
feels the legislature is spending too much. However, this
[friendly amendment] wouldn't allow the governor to [veto
those]. On the one hand, one doesn't want to upset the balance
of power, but on the other hand one doesn't want to leave it
open for the argument that the legislature has exempted itself
again.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM surmised that this [resolution] attempts to
solve the difference between an enacted versus an authorized
budget. He asked if this directive to the governor helps solve
that.
MS. BLAISDELL pointed out that with the friendly amendment the
language referring to spending is eliminated. Spending is
different than appropriating, she noted. For example, with
Medicaid spending the governor has been allowed to spend at a
rate greater than the administration knows it has appropriation
authority and thus supplemental spending is requested. The
aforementioned is a spending issue and has nothing to do with
legislative appropriations. Ms. Blaisdell also pointed out that
two different directives are given depending upon which language
is used from [the friendly amendments].
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM related that he is interested in ensuring
that when appropriations are made the spending matches the
appropriation. Representative Holm remarked that he didn't know
what language is necessary to make this constitutionally
mandated.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said [this resolution] is making it
constitutionally mandated.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM pointed out that the constitution also
mandates that there should be a balanced budget, but that hasn't
been done.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG informed the committee that he has been
researching this matter and has been told that Alaska doesn't
have a constitutional balanced budget amendment, although there
is a statute that requires it.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reminded members that there is a
constitutionally mandated capital expenditure provision that has
been consistently ignored.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG acknowledged that, but pointed out that
the constitutionally mandated capital expenditure is too high.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reminded everyone that this only occurs if
the legislature's budget increases by 2 percent twice.
Hopefully, this year's budget will decrease.
MS. BLAISDELL mentioned that even with all the decreases and
reductions there is an increase of $124 million [in this year's
budget].
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH reminded the committee that before it is the
earlier mentioned friendly amendment to Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM objected.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if printing the intent language in
the voter pamphlet would suffice in instructing the executive
branch.
Number 0999
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH pointed out that the court always looks to what
the constitution says as well as the legislative history. The
first interpreter will be the attorney general when he/she
advises the governor. If the matter is challenged by a court,
then the court will probably review what the legislature did in
adopting the language. If the legislature adopts a letter to
accompany this resolution and indicates the intent of the
legislature, it would, he believes, have great weight with
respect to the court's ultimate decision.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM remarked that without an elected attorney
general it becomes a "sticky wicket" because an appointed
attorney general is being asked by the individual who appointed
him/her to render a decision.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH commented that folks have to be intellectually
honest. Furthermore, there is always the court system and the
legislature can sue the governor as well.
Number 0912
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG highlighted that constitutional
amendments are voted on by the people, and therefore ultimately
the court reviews the wording of the constitution. In the
aforementioned it becomes a legislature of the number of people
who vote. The court would say that the people were voting on
the amendment as it was specifically presented in the voter
pamphlet. Therefore, Representative Gruenberg again recommended
passing a letter of intent along with the resolution.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON requested that Chair Weyhrauch withdraw
his friendly amendment to Amendment 1.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH withdrew his friendly amendment to Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified the friendly amendment to
Amendment 1.
"(c) If appropriations for a fiscal year exceed the
amount that may be appropriated under (a) and (b) of
this section, the governor shall reduce expenditures
by line item veto to avoid spending more than the
amount that may be appropriated under (a) and (b) of
this section."
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM inquired as to why the language
"operation and administration" need to be left out.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON answered:
It's just words. What we're doing is also taking out
"the executive branch" because once we put in "line
item veto" that gets us out of this problem ... that
we're going to get beat up because we're insulating
ourselves and putting it off on somebody else. But we
could always come back into special session to
override line item vetoes. ... This means that he has
the same authority he does for appropriating that
reduction between legislative, judicial, and executive
branch. And most of it's going to be in the executive
branch because that's what he controls.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM inquired as to how the legislature can
come back into session without the governor calling the
legislature back.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH explained that the legislature can call itself
back. He posed the following scenario:
If the legislature exceeds the amount of
appropriations under [subsections] (a) and (b), the
governor exercises the line item veto to get ...
appropriations below [subsections] (a) and (b), the
legislature doesn't like what the governor did, [the
legislature] comes back into session to override line
item vetoes, puts it back above the spending limit
(indisc. - coughing) never ending thing. So, what I
suppose is ... we'll have to decide it politically
where we're deciding to cut and where to spend because
the governor said I'm going to keep doing this until
we reach the limit. ... And we'll just be back here
for special session after special session arguing
about where the line item veto should or shouldn't be.
MS. BLAISDELL remarked that she believes the above possibility
is why there was the recommendation to enact statute that would
instruct the governor on how to reduce spending.
Number 0522
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG clarified that the legislature can come
back into [special] session by the governor calling it back into
session, which is the most common matter. The legislature can
call itself back into [special] session if the majority of each
house so desires, which is rare.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH referred Representative Dahlstrom to Article II,
Section 9, which specifies the parameters of special sessions.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG interjected that an override of a line
item veto requires a three-quarters vote. In the past, leaders
have been polled.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reminded everyone that a three-quarter
vote must be obtained in order to tap that second 2 percent.
Therefore, this is a high bar because [the legislature] has
difficulty in controlling spending. He pointed out that just
acting on appropriations and not on spending is problematic.
Number 0335
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM recalled that certain items didn't need
to be mentioned because clarification was provided in the voter
pamphlet. Therefore, she asked if anything a candidate says in
the voter pamphlet would hold up in court.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH responded that it was probably different because
when one is voting on a person, one isn't binding anyone to what
the candidate says, save the candidate. Candidate's comments in
the voter pamphlet are different than a constitutional
[amendment] or statute [in which the pamphlet] is treated like
legislative history.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG clarified that what he has said holds
true to initiatives or referendums. However, because it's a
collective statement that goes to all the voters, it would be
more carefully reviewed than a candidate's statements.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH referred to Article II, Section 16, and
highlighted the following language: "Bills to raise revenue and
appropriation bills or items, although vetoed, become law by
affirmative vote of three-fourths of the membership of the
legislature. Other vetoed bills become law by affirmative vote
of two-thirds of the membership of the legislature."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH reminded the committee that there was no
objection to Representative Seaton's friendly amendment to
Amendment 1. There being no objection, the friendly amendment
to Amendment 1 was adopted. After the adoption of this friendly
amendment to Amendment 1, Amendment 1 as amended read:
Page 1, line 2, following, "limit":
Insert "and a spending limit"
Page 2, add a new section to read:
"(c) If appropriations for a fiscal year exceed
the amount that may be appropriated under (a) and (b)
of this section, the governor shall reduce
expenditures by line item veto to avoid spending more
than the amount that may be appropriated under (a) and
(b) of this section."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH clarified that now Amendment 1 as amended is
before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected.
TAPE 03-58, SIDE A
Number 0031
MS. BLAISDELL, in response to Representative Holm, said that she
didn't have an opinion on the friendly amendment to Amendment 1.
Including "spending" [on page 1, line 2] does support the change
in the title. Therefore, she said she believes [Amendment 1 as
amended] is fine. In response to Representative Lynn, Ms.
Blaisdell agreed that she sees no problem with Amendment 1 [as
amended].
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON added that he has spoken with
Representative Stoltze who is in favor of Amendment 1, although
he hadn't spoken with him regarding Amendment 1 as amended.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Holm, Seaton,
Dahlstrom, and Lynn voted in favor of Amendment 1, as amended.
Representatives Gruenberg and Weyhrauch voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 1, as amended, was adopted by a vote of 4-
2.
Number 0240
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH, in explanation of his vote on the amendment,
directed attention to Article IX, Section 16, which he
characterized as one of the most obtuse, confusing, and poorly
worded amendments he has ever read. He expressed his desire to
keep Alaska's constitution as clean and simple as possible.
Although he is going to err on the side of simplicity, he noted
that he reserved the right to change his vote on this matter
later.
Number 0395
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved that the committee adopt
Amendment 2, which read:
Page 2, beginning on line 19 (changes as follows):
Section 30. Application, [Repeal] Reconsideration
of Appropriation and Spending Limit. (a) The 2004
amendment relating to an appropriation limit (art.IX,
sec. 16) first applies to appropriations made for
fiscal year 2006 and applies [each fiscal year]
thereafter [until fiscal year 2013].
(b) [Section 16 of Article IX is repealed July 1,
2012] The lieutenant governor shall place the ballot
title and proposition for the 2004 amendment relating
to an appropriation and spending limit (art. IX, Sec.
16) on the ballot again at the general election in
2010 and every six years thereafter unless it is
rejected. If the majority of those voting on the
proposition rejects the amendment, Section 16 of
Article IX is repealed on the date the election is
certified.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for purposes of discussion.
Number 0510
MS. BLAISDELL explained that under the current language [in the
resolution] the constitutional appropriation and spending limit
would be repealed after six years, with no further consideration
required. Amendment 2 removes the language "Repeal" and asks
for reconsideration. She informed the committee that she had
assumed that Amendment 1 would pass, and therefore she
reinserted the language "and spending" as well as Representative
Stoltze's original language that would instruct the
constitutional appropriation spending limit to be placed on the
ballot every six years. Therefore, the public would vote on
whether it wanted to continue it as is, or choose to change it,
or repeal it.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON related his understanding that [Amendment
2] would mean that this constitutional provision would be placed
on the ballot every six years for reconfirmation.
MS. BLAISDELL highlighted that page 14 of her handout entitled,
"HJR 9 Constitutional Appropriation and Spending Limit,"
provides a simplified explanation of Amendment 2. If Amendment
2 isn't adopted, the constitutional appropriation spending limit
would be repealed at the end of 2012, at which point there would
be no limit.
Number 0699
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM said that he has a real problem with
[Amendment 2] because theoretically, the constitution is already
revisited every 10 years. Representative Holm remarked that the
reliance on the constitution is at a different level than
statutes. He asked Ms. Blaisdell if any other constitution has
a proviso similar to the one being proposed here.
MS. BLAISDELL noted that she worked with the National Conference
of State Legislatures (NCSL) on this and found that there are no
other states or territories that have any type of constitutional
sunset clause. Therefore, were this to pass, Alaska would be
the first. Ms. Blaisdell related that the intent of this sunset
clause is so that [the appropriation cap] doesn't become
exponentially out of control as is the case with the original
constitutional appropriation limit. This [sunset clause] would
probably mean that reviewing the constitutional appropriation
limit would become a priority.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM said that he thinks of the constitution in
terms of being almost unchangeable versus the volatility of the
statutes. Therefore, he viewed this notion as problematic.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that he didn't view Amendment 2 or
Sections 2 and 3 as being necessary. If [the appropriation cap]
isn't working, the legislature has the ability to propose a new
constitutional amendment at any time. He said he wasn't in
favor of [Amendment 2].
Number 0989
MS. BLAISDELL, in response to Representative Dahlstrom, answered
that Representative Stoltze isn't in favor of a repeal clause in
which the appropriation limit would go away. Ms. Blaisdell
mentioned that timing of an appropriation and spending limit is
critical. If the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) were to
open and the [appropriation] limit ended in eight years, there
would be an enormous spike [in spending] similar to that in
1980, which caused some of the failure in 1985 and 1986.
Therefore, Ms. Blaisdell didn't believe Representative Stoltze
would be in favor of the appropriation limit merely being
repealed. However, Representative Stoltze might be more
favorable to the removal of the entire section, although she
recalled that he was in favor of the sunset provision.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recalled his prior experience in the
legislature when there was more money. At that time, money that
isn't available today was available for operating capital and
social projects. As a result, when that money was available it
benefited the state, a state that needs to develop itself. If
ANWR and a gas pipeline were in place, Representative Gruenberg
said he wouldn't want to have to amend the constitution to do
what is necessary.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH directed the committee's attention to the motion
to adopt Amendment 2.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG maintained his objection to Amendment
2.
A roll call vote was taken. Representative Lynn voted in favor
of Amendment 2. Representatives Seaton, Gruenberg, Holm,
Dahlstrom, and Weyhrauch voted against it. Therefore, Amendment
2 failed by a vote of 1-5.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN remarked that when the state is flushed with
money, perhaps that is the time when the coffers of the bank
should be filled.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that the state does have a
spending limit of sorts in the permanent fund because the
[state] is prohibited from spending all of the money and at
least 25 percent has to be placed in the permanent fund.
Number 1440
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved that the committee adopt Conceptual
Amendment 3, as follows:
Page 2:
Delete lines 17-23.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that this automatic repeal of the
appropriation limit seems inappropriate because if the
constitutional amendment doesn't have any more term than a
statute, it isn't worth it. Therefore, he recommended
implementing the constitutional amendment and if it doesn't
work, the matter can be revisited.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that the legislature
doesn't know the state of the economy in 2012. He explained
that [Section 2] basically says that if the [legislature] wishes
to continue with this spending limit it should be put before the
voters in or before 2012. Therefore, there would be another
review of the matter by the voters. He reiterated that he is
opposed to Conceptual Amendment 3.
Number 1610
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that he supported Conceptual Amendment
3 simply because this should look more like a constitutional
amendment than a statute. As a body, the legislature has the
ability to [call itself] into session and the people have the
ability to petition to call the legislature back in to session.
Furthermore, this is making a policy decision and the
legislature ought to live with it or not adopt it.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that currently there is an
unintelligible, unenforceable spending limit in the
constitution, Article IX, Section 16. "If we had had this kind
of thing in, we might have amended it before now," he remarked.
MS. BLAISDELL informed the committee that if Representative
Seaton's amendment doesn't pass, a small technical amendment
changing the title of Section 30 to "Repeal of Appropriation and
Spending Limit" would be required.
Number 1700
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Dahlstrom, Holm,
Seaton, and Weyhrauch voted in favor of Conceptual Amendment 3.
Representatives Lynn and Gruenberg voted against it. Therefore,
Conceptual Amendment 3 passed by a vote of 4-2.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH directed attention to page 1, line 6, which
encompasses a 10-point spending plan. He asked if paragraph (2)
could be deleted.
MS. BLAISDELL directed the committee to page 10 of her handout,
which specifies that paragraph (1) refers to an appropriation
into the Alaska Permanent Fund. There have been times in which
revenues were above the 25 percent or 50 percent mandated
deposit and thus, at those times, more money has been placed
into the principle of the fund. She explained that paragraph
(2) refers to expenditures out of the Alaska Permanent Fund.
Number 1840
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH pointed out that under HJR 26 and the
accompanying statutory scheme there would be a 60:40 split. He
inquired as to the synergy between HJR 26 and the statutory
scheme implementing it and paragraphs (1) and (2) of HJR 9.
MS. BLAISDELL explained that HJR 9 instructs how the base will
be calculated for the 2 percent growth while HJR 26 instructs
the use of permanent fund money to become available for
expenditure. Therefore, it's the difference between a revenue
source and an expenditure source. If the permanent fund
appropriations or deposits aren't excluded from the base,
fluctuations in the permanent fund may not be reflective of an
appropriation limit. For example, if the permanent fund dropped
this year to $500, it could adjust the base spending limit by a
little over $750 million. She pointed out that HJR 26 is the
revenue stream and HJR 9 is the appropriation limit.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG posed a situation in which HJR 9 and
HJR 26 go before the voters. He pointed out that HJR 26
eliminates the difference between principle and income in the
permanent fund. Therefore, the concept of income from the fund,
particularly with the possibility of HB 298, is going to
potentially change to include unrealized income. He related his
belief that [HJR 9] may have to be drafted such that it would
accommodate the passage or failure of HJR 26. Furthermore, if
there is a balanced budget constitutional amendment, it will
interplay with HJR 9 as well. He indicated that there may be a
time at which there will have to be a decision made regarding
whether to combine some of these amendments into a single ballot
measure.
Number 2069
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON posed a scenario in which the percent of
market value (POMV) proposal goes into effect and 60 percent of
that is used for state funds. He asked if that is covered in
paragraph (2) of CSHJR 9(W&M). He also asked if the section
dealing with government is included in paragraph (1).
MS. BLAISDELL clarified that HJR 26 isn't incorporated into
either of these two scenarios. One is a specific deposit into
the permanent fund while the other is a specific payment out of
the permanent fund or a dividend to the people.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON surmised then that any other appropriation
out of the permanent fund, on a POMV basis, for state government
would [be calculated in the base].
MS. BLAISDELL agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG inquired as to how to deal with
inflation as well as unforeseen crises that aren't "disasters".
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH remarked that he wanted those to be dealt with
in the House Judiciary Standing Committee. He then turned
attention to page 2, lines 11-16, of CSHJR 9(W&M), particularly
the language excluding the appropriations listed in (a)(1)-(10)
and pointed out that paragraph (8) is a reappropriation. He
asked if the language on page 2, lines 11-16, should also refer
to reappropriation.
MS. BLAISDELL informed the committee that currently a
reappropriation hasn't been counted in the fiscal summary, but
is basically shown as a zero appropriation amount because it was
accounted for in a prior fiscal year.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH inquired as to why this [constitutional]
amendment even needs reappropriation addressed at all.
MS. BLAISDELL answered, clarification, because technically the
legislature is appropriating that money.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if the language specified that
appropriations and reappropriations are being excluded in
(a)(1)-(10) would provide more clarity.
MS. BLAISDELL replied no because reappropriations are
appropriated each year. She related her belief that it's an
issue of semantics.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH suggested moving the language in paragraph (8)
to after "to" on page 1, line 9, to be followed by the language
"and to an appropriation" and then list the paragraphs. The
paragraphs would no longer need to say "an appropriation". He
explained that he was seeking to wordsmith this resolution to
make it as simple as possible.
MS. BLAISDELL said that would make total sense.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH moved that the committee adopt Conceptual
Amendment 4, which would on page 1, line 9, after "to", insert,
"a reappropriation of money already appropriated under an
unobligated appropriation that is not void under Section 13 of
this article and to an appropriation" and on page 1, lines 10 -
page 2, line 7, delete "an appropriation" at the beginning of
paragraphs (1)-(10). There being no objection, Conceptual
Amendment 4 was adopted.
Number 2507
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved that the committee adopt
Conceptual Amendment 5 as follows:
Page 1, line 7 and page 2, line 14, after "two
percent":
Insert "(excluding inflation)"
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that he is trying to say that
there is a concept of inflation, but no one knows how much it
will be in any year. However, the inflation could considerably
reduce the 2 percent and thus there would be no ability to even
keep pace with inflation. Therefore, he wanted to be sure that
if there is inflation that it's considered.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM offered a friendly amendment to Conceptual
Amendment 5 such that it would insert "(including inflation)"
rather than "(excluding inflation)". He explained that he
believes this [resolution] attempts to formulate a way in which
to limit the growth of government. He indicated that he was
trying to [accomplish what Representative Gruenberg described]
while keeping the lid down on the ability of government to grow.
He pointed out that 2 percent plus 5 percent inflation sums 7
percent growth. However, 2 percent, including inflation means
that it can be 5 percent and maintain 2 percent as the upper
limit.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that he was going to vote against
Conceptual Amendment 5 because he believes it should be brought
up in the House Finance Committee where the full ramifications
can be considered.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew Conceptual Amendment 5.
[The friendly amendment to Conceptual Amendment 5 was considered
withdrawn.]
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM moved to report CSHJR 9(W&M), as amended,
out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHJR
9(STA) was reported from the House State Affairs Standing
Committee.
Number 2745
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH, at 10:25 a.m., recessed the House State Affairs
Standing Committee to a call of the chair.
TAPE 03-59, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH called the meeting of the House State Affairs
Standing Committee back to order at 3:06 p.m. Representatives
Weyhrauch, Holm, Seaton, and Dahlstrom were present at the call
back to order. Representatives Lynn and Gruenberg arrived as
the meeting was in progress.
HB 149-LOBBYING BY NONPROFITS
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH returned to 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."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH reminded the committee that it was going through
the handwritten Amendment 3 earlier in the meeting when the
committee left off on page 3 of Amendment 3. He asked if
Representative Wolf is amenable to page 3 and page 4 of
Amendment 3, which read [original punctuation provided]:
At page 2, line 10:
Delete "and"
Insert "(ii) delivered by mail or electronic
means to the members of the corporation or, if the
corporation is not a membership organization, to its
board of directors
(2) for lobbying expenditures incurred between
January 1 and June 30 of a calendar year, the notice
provided under subsection (1) shall be published or
delivered no less than thirty (30) days after July 1
of the same calendar year. For lobbying expenditures
incurred between July 1 and December 31 of a calendar
year, the notice provided under subsection (1) shall
be published or delivered no less than thirty (30)
days after January 1 of the succeeding calendar year.
(3) Each corporation subject to this Act shall
maintain in its corporate headquarters a true and
correct copy of each notice provided under subsection
(1) for a period of not less than two calendar years
after publication or delivery.
At page 2, lines 17-23:
Delete all.
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF replied yes.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH clarified that Amendment 3 [in its entirety] is
before the committee. He recalled that it had been moved. He
expressed interest in adopting Amendment 3 and incorporating it
into a committee substitute (CS) so that the committee can have
a clean version with all the changes.
Number 0200
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM informed the committee that she and
Representative Wolf had a conversation regarding her proposed
conceptual amendment to change the yearly gross revenue to at
least $10 million.
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF said that [$10 million] is an excessive
amount. In response to Representative Dahlstrom, Representative
Wolf announced that he was comfortable with revenues of $1
million.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection to Amendment 3
as amended.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected. He directed attention to page 3
of Amendment 3 and commented that sub-subparagraph (ii) is an
expensive requirement to which he is opposed.
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF pointed out that sub-subparagraph (ii)
specifies that information can be "delivered by mail or
electronic means".
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON related his belief that this is excessive
interference with a 501(c)(3) for a purpose that he hasn't been
able to define yet. Representative Seaton announced his
opposition to [Amendment 3 as amended].
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF specified that his biggest concern with this
matter is the public's trust with regard to disclosure of
501(c)(3) nonprofits.
Number 0535
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH noted that one of the biggest questions about
this legislation is whether this is already covered by federal
law.
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF explained that the IRS has a mandate to
manage 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations to maintain
insubstantial lobbying efforts. The IRS has openly stated that
it doesn't have the means or the time to police 850,000
nonprofits nationwide. This legislation would merely return the
public's trust in the 501(c)(3) nonprofits in Alaska.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said that he hasn't heard of any problem in this
arena at the state level. He asked, "Is there an issue that
this bill is in search of?"
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF answered that nonprofit organizations step
into Alaska on the issue of predator control. He charged that
such nonprofits enter Alaska and line their accounts with soft
money [under the guise] of killing wolves. The intent with this
legislation is to implement something that when a local resident
makes a contribution to a nonprofit, there will be an attempt
[made by the nonprofit] to relate to the contributor where the
contributions were used.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked if this would include those groups
lobbying against the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF replied yes, if those groups are lobbying.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH, upon reviewing the third page of Amendment 3,
said that he had a problem with it because its burdensome.
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF related that he has no problem with the
deletion of page 3 of Amendment 3 if that's the committee's
wish.
Number 0968
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there is objection to removing page
three of Amendment 3. There being no objection, it was so
ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved that the committee adopt the
following amendment [Amendment 4]:
Page 1, line 9, after "501(c)(3)"
Insert ", which has yearly gross revenues of at
least $1 million,"
There being no objection, [Amendment 4] was adopted.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that there's a motion to adopt
Amendment 3 as amended, as follows:
At page 1, line 2:
Delete "public"
At page 1, lines 2-3:
Delete "and an annual report of lobbying
expenditure to the Department of Revenue"
At page 1, line 8:
Delete ", annual report"
At page 1, line 9:
Delete "public"
At page 1, lines 11-13:
Delete "a copy of the newspaper's certificate of
publication with a copy of the notice published and
the dates of publication within seven days after the
last publication of the notice"
and
Insert "written evidence of satisfaction of this
section."
At page 1, line 13:
Delete "public"
At page 1, lines 13-14:
Delete "is required to" and "publication"
Page 2, line 1,
Delete "$500"
Insert "$1,000"
At page 2, line 4; after "specificity, the"
Insert "lobbying"
Page 2, lines 4-6:
Delete "proposed, the proposed budget, the
location, and time period in which the lobbying
activity has occurred or will occur;
(2) of the notice not fewer than two times in
eight days;"
Insert "the lobbying activity that has been
published"
At page 2, line 6:
Delete "(2) of the notice"
Insert "(i) published"
At page 2, lines 6-7:
Delete "; (3)"
At page 2, lines 17-23:
Delete all.
There being no objection, Amendment 3, as amended, was adopted.
[HB 149 was held over.]
The committee took an at-ease from 3:22 p.m. to 3:25 p.m.
HB 157-ELIMINATE APOC
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH returned the committee's attention to 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."
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM moved to adopt CSHB 157, Version 23-
GH1090\H, Craver, 5/7/03, as the working document. There still
being no objection, Version H was before the committee. [This
motion was made earlier in the meeting by Representative
Gruenberg.
Number 1382
TAMMY KEMPTON, Regulation of Lobbying, Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC), Department of Administration, explained that
the reason for the amendment being proposed by APOC is that in
Version H there were some changes to the title. One of the
changes to the title says, "Allowing a candidate to make a loan
to the candidate's own campaign without notifying the
commission." However, APOC still needs to be notified, although
the notification provisions have been changed not eliminated.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN surmised, "But that doesn't change the fact
that notification we have to make to get our loan paid back."
MS. KEMPTON agreed, but pointed out that the title makes it
sound as if the candidate no longer needs to notify APOC at all.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN related his understanding then that if he
makes a loan to his campaign and subject to the limits he could
be repaid from his campaign contributions later on without
turning in a piece of paper to APOC.
MS. KEMPTON agreed and specified that the candidate would notify
APOC on the candidate's next due report.
Number 1493
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM informed the committee that when he filed
[for candidacy] he didn't realize he had to do this. Therefore,
when he filed he put money in to start his campaign and because
he didn't notify APOC, the money was considered a campaign
contribution and he couldn't reimburse himself. He said that
such requirements should be made apparent during filing.
MS. KEMPTON noted that the requirement of notifying APOC within
five days has been eliminated.
Number 1586
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved that the committee adopt Amendment
1, which read:
Page 1, lines 5-6
Delete "allowing a candidate to make a loan to
the candidate's own campaign without notifying the
commission;"
Insert "amendment the notice provision when a
candidate makes a loan to the candidate's own
campaign;"
There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
Number 1640
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM moved to report CSHB 157, Version 23-
GH1090\H, Craver, 5/7/03, as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for the purposes of
discussion. He noted that [the committee] recently received the
memorandum dated May 7, 2003, from Barbara Craver, the drafting
attorney for HB 157. He asked if Ms. Craver found any problem.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ related his understanding that Ms.
Craver's memorandum says that everything is okay.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG related his understanding that Ms.
Craver is making a suggestion to change Section 8.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ requested Representative Gruenberg's
indulgence on this matter [indicating the need to forward the
legislation from committee] because there are two other
committees of referral in which any concerns could be raised.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG obliged and withdrew his objection.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH [indicated that there were no further objections
to the motion to report Version H, as amended from committee].
Therefore, CSHB 157(STA) was reported from the House State
Affairs Standing Committee.
DAVID FINKELSTEIN, Volunteer, Campaign Finance Reform Now, noted
his appreciation to the committee for its previous action on
some of the amendments.
Number 1941
ANDREE McLEOD provided the following testimony. She recalled
the beginning of this legislature when, at a Chamber of Commerce
meeting, the House Minority leader expressed his desire to hold
the legislature to a higher standard as Alaskans expect and
demand more from the legislature. "And I come to you with that
in mind," she said. She highlighted that the legislature is
present to legislate, to appropriate, and to advocate. However,
this legislation allows lobbyists to contribute to candidates as
well as to engage in campaigns. Permitting lobbyists to again
engage in campaign activities goes back to the time Mr.
Finkelstein spoke of when, prior to 1996, lobbyists gave out
directly and indirectly between $25,000-$100,000 each election
cycle. Therefore, there will be a large influx of money from
special interest [groups], she predicted. This will occur at a
time when state resources are limited. Ms. McLeod said, "The
way you advocate and whom you advocate for will be circumspect
by removing the prohibition." She charged that [this
legislation] is breaking down the integrity of the political
process. She expressed concern that once the control of
disallowing candidates to give money to candidates outside their
district is eliminated, the control that keeps things running
smoothly is being eliminated.
MS. McLEOD recalled that this morning Chair Weyhrauch correlated
free speech of HB 230 with HB 157. However, she pointed out
that free speech is only free speech if no one is paying for
that speech. On one end of the lobbyists, businesses and
special interests are paying for that speech and thus it's not
free. When that free speech is influencing and impacting public
policy, it's not free speech because people end up paying for
the costs of whatever the special interest [groups] want. Ms.
McLeod pleaded with the committee to not increase the number of
hours for lobbyist activity from 4 to 16. She indicated that
[passage of this legislation] means that those in the
legislature will now be influenced by special interest [groups]
and advocate for them, and therefore legislation and
appropriations for special interest groups will follow.
Number 2210
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to page 18, lines
23, 27, and 30, where there seems to be a drafting error. He
said the figures should refer to "$5,000" per one of the
amendments the committee adopted.
[CSHB 157(STA) was reported from the committee.]
The committee took an at-ease from 3:43 p.m. to 3:47 p.m.
HB 230-POLITICAL SIGNS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH returned the committee's attention to HOUSE BILL
NO. 230, "An Act relating to political signs on private
property."
Number 2292
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that he was going to suggest that
the findings of HB 230 be placed in statute AS 19.25.075 like
the other legislative findings, as was discussed this morning.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM characterized the above as a friendly
amendment.
JAMES CANTOR, Assistant Attorney General, Transportation
Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law, said
Representative Gruenberg's suggestion makes sense.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH recalled that AS 19.25.075 was adopted by the
people of the state pursuant to a referendum.
MR. CANTOR replied yes.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH pointed out that AS 19.25.075 is entitled,
"Findings and intent of the people of the State of Alaska."
Therefore, he asked if the legislature does this, would it be
different than the people.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG clarified that the [findings of HB 230]
would be a subsection (c). Conceptually, Representative
Gruenberg suggested changing the title of AS 19.25.075 such that
it would be entitled, "Findings and intent" and subsections (a)
and (b) would remain the same with subsection (c) and paragraphs
(1) and (2) under Section 1 of CSHB 230(TRA).
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said that this is partly a policy question [for]
Representative Holm and a legal question [for] Mr. Cantor.
MR. CANTOR said this is a bit outside his expertise. However,
he recalled that there is a period of time after which the
legislature can revise referendums.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG clarified his conceptual amendment as
follows. He explained that the title of AS 19.25.075 would be
changed to read, "Findings and intent". Under AS 19.25.075
subsections (a) and (b) would remain as is while a subsection
(c) would be inserted. Therefore Section 1 of CSHB 230(TRA)
would read:
*Section 1. AS 19.25.075 is amended to read:
(c) The Alaska State Legislature finds that
(1) the right to advocate for or against those
individuals who would occupy public office and issues
of public interest is an inherent right that has been
repeatedly affirmed by the courts; and
(2) the right to advocate for or against those
individuals who would occupy public office and issues
of public interest must be subject to only the minimum
of restrictions necessary to address a compelling
public or government interest.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced, "Without objection, that amendment
has been made conceptually."
Number 2600
MR. CANTOR recalled that this morning there was a question
regarding what happens when the Department of Transportation &
Public Facilities (DOT&PF) has an easement and a private
property owner owns that land underneath that easement.
Currently, that is being litigated with commercial signs. Mr.
Cantor related that DOT&PF would suggest that the committee
include language specifying that private property doesn't
include that portion of property subject to an easement for
public transportation. Also, Mr. Cantor said that the
definitions of "current relevance" and "date of decision" may
allow commercial speech and thus he suggested the following:
Page 2, line 25, before "matter":
Insert "noncommercial"
Page 2, line 25:
Delete "or"
Insert "and"
MR. CANTOR turned to the Nike case related to indirect
advertising for commercial products and noted that the committee
could consider adding in language that prohibits indirect
advertising for commercial products. Mr. Cantor moved to page
2, line 18, and related that [the "date of decision" definition]
leaves DOT&PF with an uncomfortable decision to try to decide
when a public matter is terminated. Therefore, he suggested
specifying a time limit for temporary signs and requiring that
signs be dated when erected.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH related his understanding that political signs
have to be taken down right after the election or there is a
fine.
MR. CANTOR said no and pointed out that such signs aren't
allowed on private property. This legislation may handle the
election issue, there are "issues" that this could address.
Number 2779
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM emphasized that there is a difference
between commercial speech and political free speech
constitutionally. He agreed with Mr. Cantor that commercial
speech has its place to be regulated. However, to assert that
political free speech has a time limit is inappropriate.
Representative Holm inquired as to the widest right-of-way that
the state takes of private property in the state.
MR. CANTOR clarified that many of the widths were established by
public land orders. He noted that he could think of some
rights-of-way that are 300 feet. In further response to
Representative Holm, Mr. Cantor said that the distance from the
center line to the edge of the right-of-way would depend upon
the type of roadway. He recalled that the Old Seward Highway in
Anchorage is 150 feet on either side of the center line.
However, in a number of locations the state holds easements.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, upon determining that this is the last
committee of referral, offered to work with Representative Holm
in handling [Mr. Cantor's suggestions].
Number 2951
TODD LARKIN, Staff to Representative Jim Holm, Alaska State
Legislature, expressed the need to be ready for the next
election season. If this first step is put on the books, then
any problems could be addressed [as they come up].
TAPE 03-59, SIDE B
Number 2985
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG indicated that this could be worked on
during the interim.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM emphasized that this [legislation] is very
important to him because this is a First Amendment right that
has been poorly and inconsistently handled over time.
Therefore, he expressed the need to deal with this matter before
the next election season. He suspected that this legislation
will be worked on in the Senate, which will take some time.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked that seldom has the
legislature had legislation dealing with freedom of expression.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN mentioned that perhaps [Representative
Gruenberg's idea of dealing with freedom of expression] could be
dealt with in another piece of legislation over the interim.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG requested that Mr. Cantor's suggestions
be reviewed and asked if the legislation could be held over
night.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM noted he was amenable to the above.
[HB 230 was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 4:07
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|