04/20/2004 08:03 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
April 20, 2004
8:03 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bruce Weyhrauch, Chair
Representative Jim Holm, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 26
Relating to investments in Alaska by corporate America in which
the permanent fund invests.
- MOVED CSHCR 26(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 327(STA)
"An Act relating to pedestrians using rollerblades, roller
skates, and rollerskis."
- MOVED CSSB 327(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 520
"An Act relating to the expenses of investigation, hearing, or
public advocacy before the Regulatory Commission of Alaska, to
calculation of the regulatory cost charge for public utilities
and pipeline carriers to include the Department of Law's costs
of its public advocacy function, to inspection of certain books
and records by the attorney general when participating as a
party in a matter before the Regulatory Commission of Alaska;
and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 45
Requesting the United States Congress to propose an amendment to
the Constitution of the United States to provide that a vacancy
in the office of United States Representative may be filled by
appointment until an election can be held.
- MOVED CSHJR 45(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 411
"An Act relating to an optional election to prevent the name and
address of a permanent fund dividend applicant from being
disclosed, except to a state or federal agency."
- MOVED CSHB 411(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 31(STA)
Relating to urging the United States Congress to compensate the
State of Alaska for the effect of federal land ownership on the
state's ability to fund public education.
- BILL HEARING POSTPONED to 4/22/04
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HCR 26
SHORT TITLE:PFUND: ENCOURAGE INVESTMENTS IN ALASKA
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) WOLF
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/20/04 2340 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/20/04 2340 (H) STA
04/08/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/08/04 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(STA)
04/15/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/15/04 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(STA)
04/20/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: SB 327
SHORT TITLE:ROLLERBLADES,ROLLER SKATES, ROLLER SKIS
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) SEEKINS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/13/04 2157 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/13/04 2157 (S) STA, FIN
02/26/04 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
02/26/04 (S) Moved CSSB 327(STA) Out of
Committee
02/26/04 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/27/04 2312 (S) STA RPT 3DP 1NR NEW TITLE
02/27/04 2312 (S) DP: STEVENS G, COWDERY,
STEDMAN;
02/27/04 2312 (S) NR: HOFFMAN
02/27/04 2312 (S) FN1: ZERO(DPS)
03/17/04 2545 (S) FIN REFERRAL WAIVED
03/19/04 2571 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 3/19/2004
03/19/04 2571 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
03/19/04 2571 (S) STA CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
03/19/04 2571 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
03/19/04 2571 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB
327(STA)
03/19/04 2571 (S) COSPONSOR(S): WILKEN, GREEN,
STEVENS B,
03/19/04 2571 (S) FRENCH, DYSON, ELTON
03/19/04 2571 (S) PASSED Y17 N1 E2
03/19/04 2578 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/19/04 2578 (S) VERSION: CSSB 327(STA)
03/22/04 3015 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/22/04 3015 (H) TRA, STA
03/22/04 3035 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): GUTTENBERG
03/30/04 (H) TRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 17
03/30/04 (H) Moved CSSB 327(STA) Out of
Committee
MINUTE(TRA)
03/31/04 3136 (H) TRA RPT 4DP 3NR
03/31/04 3136 (H) DP: MASEK, OGG, STEPOVICH,
HOLM;
03/31/04 3136 (H) NR: KOOKESH, KAPSNER, KOHRING
03/31/04 3136 (H) FN1: ZERO(DPS)
04/13/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/13/04 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(STA)
04/20/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 520
SHORT TITLE:REGULATORY COMMISSION OF ALASKA
SPONSOR(S): STATE AFFAIRS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/23/04 2693 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/23/04 2693 (H) STA, L&C, FIN
03/05/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/05/04 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed to
Mon. 3/8/04>
03/05/04 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/08/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/08/04 (H) Heard & Held
03/08/04 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/20/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HJR 45
SHORT TITLE:APPOINTMENT OF U.S. REPRESENTATIVES
SPONSOR(S): JUDICIARY
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
04/05/04 3207 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
04/05/04 3207 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
04/06/04 3239 (H) FIN REFERRAL REMOVED
04/07/04 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/07/04 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/20/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 411
SHORT TITLE:PF DIVIDEND APPLICATION RECORDS PRIVATE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) CROFT
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/28/04 2421 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/28/04 2421 (H) STA, JUD
04/13/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/13/04 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(STA)
04/20/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
DANIEL PATRICK O'TIERNEY, Senior Assistant Attorney General
Commercial/Fair Business Section
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law (DOL)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the attorney general
during the hearing on HB 520.
PAT LUBY, Advocacy Director
AARP in Alaska
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of AARP in support of
Version D, during the hearing on HB 520.
JIM ROWE, Executive Director
Alaska Telephone Association (ATA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the ATA during the
hearing on HB 520.
MARK K. JOHNSON, Chair
Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 520.
REPRESENTATIVE ERIC CROFT
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As sponsor of HB 411, discussed the
differences between a House and Senate committee substitute.
SHARON BARTON, Director
Central Office
Permanent Fund Dividend Division
Department of Revenue
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified, on behalf of the division, that
HB 411 was acceptable as amended, but suggested possible areas
of improvement.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 04-64, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR BRUCE WEYHRAUCH called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:03 a.m. Representatives Holm,
Seaton, Coghill, and Weyhrauch were present at the call to
order. Representatives Lynn, Berkowitz, and Gruenberg arrived
as the meeting was in progress.
HCR 26-PFUND: ENCOURAGE INVESTMENTS IN ALASKA
Number 0056
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the first order of business was
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 26, Relating to investments in
Alaska by corporate America in which the permanent fund invests.
[The committee treated Version 23-LS1469\S, Cook, 4/19/04, as
adopted and before the committee.]
Number 0073
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to report CSHCR 26, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHCR
26(STA) was reported out of the House State Affairs Standing
Committee.
SB 327-ROLLERBLADES,ROLLER SKATES, ROLLER SKIS
Number 0132
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the next order of business was CS
FOR SENATE BILL NO. 327(STA), "An Act relating to pedestrians
using rollerblades, roller skates, and rollerskis."
Number 0172
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM moved to report CSSB 327(STA) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
HB 520-REGULATORY COMMISSION OF ALASKA
Number 0229
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the next order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 520, "An Act relating to the expenses of
investigation, hearing, or public advocacy before the Regulatory
Commission of Alaska, to calculation of the regulatory cost
charge for public utilities and pipeline carriers to include the
Department of Law's costs of its public advocacy function, to
inspection of certain books and records by the attorney general
when participating as a party in a matter before the Regulatory
Commission of Alaska; and providing for an effective date."
Number 0260
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM moved to adopt the committee substitute (CS)
for HB 520, Version 23-LS1785\D, Craver, 4/20/04, [as a work
draft]. No objection was stated; therefore, it was so ordered.
Number 0288
DANIEL PATRICK O'TIERNEY, Senior Assistant Attorney General,
Commercial/Fair Business Section, Civil Division (Anchorage),
Department of Law (DOL), testifying on behalf of the attorney
general, stated that [HB 520] is a "follow on" to last year's
Executive Order 111 [EO 111] and gives the authority that was
transferred the opportunity to be implemented responsibly. He
offered a summary as follows:
Last year, EO 111 transferred the responsibility for
advocacy on behalf of the public in utility matters
before the Regulatory Commission of Alaska [RCA], from
the RCA to the attorney general, and it established
the public advocacy function within the Department of
Law. As a result, RCA personnel that were
historically responsible for that advocacy now act
under the authority and direction of the Department of
Law. The attorney general is, if you will, the public
advocate for the purposes of utility issues before the
RCA.
So, this bill completes the transfer, because it
expressly provides for various aspects of execution,
and it does the following four things: It clarifies
that regulatory cost charge receipts, and not general
[funds], will continue to pay for the general cost of
public advocacy that's now administered by the DOL,
just as those receipts historically paid for public
advocacy costs when the function was performed by the
RCA. Second of all, and related, the bill also
modifies the regulatory cost charge ceiling, and it
creates two distinct percentages of that total ceiling
to separately fund the RCA and the DOL public advocacy
function, respectively. That provides each entity
with budgetary independence, which is appropriate,
because, in this instance, essentially, the commission
functions as the adjudicator; it's appropriate, if you
will, [that] parties before it not have an appearance
of anything other than independence, and this provides
that.
... This bill ... provides the Department of Law's
public advocacy function with qualified access to
utility or pipeline carrier records similar to that
afforded the RCA's former public advocacy staff. And
the purpose is, of course, to maintain an efficient
and economical access to information, and those are
instances where the RCA [has] determined that a
comprehensive review and hearing is appropriate, in
those instances only - adjudicatory matters.
And then, finally, the bill clarifies, for the
purposes of the RCA, ... the Department of Law, and
other state agencies, that state agencies are exempt
from paying the allocated costs of RCA proceedings.
And the purpose for that is: Because there is no net
fiscal benefit to the state in doing so, currently the
statute is unclear. The RCA, in its wisdom, has
actually allocated the state in an instance, but not
required payment until after the legislative session,
in order to allow the Department of Law to come before
the legislature to have the law clarified, so that
they have more specific guidance.
MR. O'TIERNEY stated that the benefits of Version D are that it
would: complete the consolidation of public advocacy; give the
advocacy function budgetary independence from the RCA; provide
the Department of Law qualified access to utility records, to
facilitate efficient investigation; and eliminate the
inefficiency involved with state agencies being subject to
paying allocated costs for RCA proceedings.
Number 0565
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH described a scenario where one of the highly
competitive telecommunications companies is involved in a rate
proceeding. The cost of the public advocacy that is incurred by
the State of Alaska and its consultants and experts is then
passed through the industry to the consumer. Chair Weyhrauch
stated that some of the telecommunication companies may not be
involved in that particular rate hearing and the concern has
been voiced that the cost will be passed through to all of the
companies, as opposed to the one company that was involved in
the rate proceeding. He indicated it is a question of fairness
and asked Mr. O'Tierney how this issue is addressed in the bill.
MR. O'TIERNEY replied that the bill doesn't change the way in
which the regulatory cost charge receipt mechanism works. He
said, "The workload that goes on in the course of the year is
tracked and assigned to various sectors of the industry, and
that's how their portion of regulatory cost charge receipts are
determined. That's the way the statute works ... since it's
been established by the legislature. This bill doesn't change
that, whatsoever." He clarified that [HB 520] recognizes that
the same costs that historically have been paid for out of
regulatory cost charge receipts will continue to be so paid, now
that the function has moved to [the Department of Law].
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH surmised that if he were to hear from a company
that's complaining about the aforementioned scenario, then that
company is talking about the process, as opposed to the bill.
MR. O'TIERNEY answered that's correct. He indicated that that
company would be talking about the entire regulatory cost charge
mechanism and the way it's enshrined in statute "as we speak."
Number 0723
PAT LUBY, Advocacy Director, AARP in Alaska, told the committee
that AARP has 76,000 members in Alaska, all of whom [are
consumers]. He stated that the RCA is often viewed as a referee
between competing utility companies in the battle for market
shares; however, AARP views the RCA as its voice, consumer watch
dog, and public advocate in the utility market place. He stated
that the responsibilities for the RCA for public advocacy are
now placed in the Office of the Attorney General (AG).
Consumers depend on the AG and the RCA public advocacy staff to
look after its interest on issues before the regulatory
commission. Mr. Luby stated that the budget of the AG's office
is limited. He noted that one of the AARP's favorite sections
of [Version D] is that it would allow the AG's office to recoup
its expenses involved in regulatory investigations. He
concluded that, from a consumer perspective, that makes sense.
Mr. Luby stated that AARP supports [Version D].
Number 0817
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM noted that the consultants in many of the
cases are "hugely expensive." He asked who is present to keep
the pricing down.
MR. LUBY responded that this area of government is complex,
expensive, and requires experts. He noted that AARP has two
attorneys who deal solely with utility issues. He stated his
belief that [Version D] has "some of those controls built in
there." In response to a follow-up question from Representative
Holm, he stated that the AARP is satisfied with [the language as
it appears in Version D].
Number 0928
JIM ROWE, Executive Director, Alaska Telephone Association
(ATA), noted his support of the committee substitute (CS). In
response to a question from Chair Weyhrauch, he stated that he
did not have the current [Version D] in front of him, but had a
working draft that "we've worked with the Department of Law on."
He added, "The testimony I've heard, so far, seems to go very
much with what I have here, sir." He said ATA is in support of
"this" and appreciates having worked with the Department of Law.
He noted that "the initial 520" exhibited tendencies that would
have caused customer costs to accelerate dramatically. He said
the version he holds specifies a budget that "will be there for
the advocacy section." Mr. Rowe continued as follows:
We appreciate that it has a specified budget, because
we've pushed the Alaska Telephone Association for
quite awhile for separation between the advocacy and
advisory parts of the regulatory commission of Alaska.
And I think this committee substitute goes far to
making that separation so that we can have an advocacy
group that will be on record in opposition or perhaps
in concert with the utility in front of the
adjudicatory body. We think that's very important.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked what the distinction is between "advocacy"
and "advisory," in regard to recouping expenses by the
Department of Law.
MR. ROWE answered that the advisory works directly for the
commission. The advisory staff helps the adjudicatory body and
cannot be cross-examined, whereas the advocacy staff goes on
record and can be cross-examined. He said, "We've been
frustrated in the past when it was unclear that there was a
party on record representing the public, other than just the
commissioners who were making the decisions. And with just
commissioners and their advisory staff doing research and coming
up with positions, there's no opportunity for a record; there's
no opportunity to cross-examine .... So, we're pleased with the
separation that this bill is giving us."
Number 1159
MARK K. JOHNSON, Chair, Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA),
stated his belief that that Mr. O'Tierney's "description" is
accurate, and he said he doesn't need to correct anything that's
been said so far. He offered to answer questions.
Number 1174
MR. O'TIERNEY responded to Representative Holm's previous
question regarding what "sideboards" are on the Department of
Law's public advocacy expenditure. He continued as follows:
The original bill had a provision which would have
"costed" utilities directly for expenditures related
to the Department of Law's consultants in a given
case. That provision is ... no longer a part of the
bill .... And what has substituted [it] ... is a
provision which simply amends existing statute, which
... has a ... cap on the amount of funds available
from regulatory costs charge for RCA and advocacy
purposes. That's still in the statute, and that
exists as a matter of law now.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM asked if the language on page 2, lines 2-5,
addressed that.
MR. O'TIERNEY answered that's correct. He clarified that the
committee substitute provides the RCA and the advocacy with
"subcomponent caps." He noted that the budget will be carried
by the Department of Law, before the legislature, on an annual
basis, subject to the cap and subject to [the legislature's]
review and approval.
Number 1269
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that the phrase, "reasonable
access" is on page 3, line 15, and on page 5, line 10. He asked
who determines what's reasonable.
MR. O'TIERNEY answered that, ultimately, if there's a dispute
about what's reasonable, the RCA will make that call. He
pointed to the sentence on page 3, lines 21-22, which read:
"This access is subject to reasonable notice to all parties with
an opportunity to object before the commission."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said the purpose of his question was to
establish a record that that's what the legislative intent is.
MR. O'TIERNEY stated, "In fact, this was a point that was
negotiated between all the parties to make sure that there was
an opportunity to object." In response to a follow-up question
from Representative Gruenberg, he confirmed that, to his
knowledge, "it was agreeable with the parties."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked what the scope of judicial review
is in regard to abuse of discretion.
MR. O'TIERNEY responded that, for the purposes of a commission
decision as to whether or not a certain form of access is
reasonable, it would be subject first to a motion for
reconsideration before the commission. In further response to
Representative Gruenberg, he confirmed that there is no
requirement of a reconsideration motion.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked, "Is the scope, generally, of
judicial review in this area an abuse of discretion by the
commission? Is that the standard of review?"
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to a sentence on
page 5, lines 19-22, which read as follows:
Costs incurred in complying with a request to review
the records referred to in this subsection or to
maintain those records in such a manner as to make
them conveniently available for review shall be borne
by the party controlling the records.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that that language does not
appear in Section 5. He asked why.
Number 1438
MR. O'TIERNEY explained that the [Section 5] relates to AS
42.05, which is related to utility matters, while [Section 11]
relates to AS 42.06, which is "the pipeline statute." He
stated, "The omission or the existence of that phrase is not a
function of this amendment before you in the CS."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if there is an historical reason
or a policy reason "for one and not the other."
MR. O'TIERNEY said he is not aware of any such reason.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG turned to [Sections 14 and 15],
regarding retroactivity and applicability. He asked what the
reason is "for making those things retroactive or applicable."
He noted that the retroactivity on page 6, line 13, was set for
"May 30, 2003." He asked why that date was chosen.
MR. O'TIERNEY explained that the language speaks to Sections 6
and 13, which are provisions that indicate that there will be no
payment of cost allocations by state agencies to the RCA. The
provisions that Representative Gruenberg had previously noted in
Sections 14 and 15 were meant to capture previous cost
allocations by the RCA of the state; therefore, having them
apply retroactively means that "those cost allocations will not
need to be paid on a going-forward basis." He explained that
the reason for that is that the commission has indicated that
it's cost allocating, but it's not requiring payment until after
the legislative session, which would provide the opportunity for
the legislature to address the lack of clarity in the statute.
He concluded, "And so, these provisions would retroactively
apply to the prior cost allocations that have occurred."
MR. O'TIERNEY, in response to Representative Gruenberg,
explained that the applicability and retroactivity provisions
really only cover the state, because utilities are not subject
to cost allocation. The reason for that, he explained, is
because the commission does not cost allocate entities that are
already paying the regulatory cost charge into the regulatory
cost charge receipt mechanism.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked, "So, the commission itself would
absorb the cost?"
MR. O'TIERNEY answered that's correct.
Number 1649
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM asked if there would be an additional fiscal
note to accompany Version D.
MR. O'TIERNEY answered that there could be, but stated his
belief that it would be a zero fiscal note, once again. He
added, "What we're talking about is, basically, a non-general
fund, off-budget set of numbers ...."
Number 1699
MR. JOHNSON stated the following:
There was a question there at the end about the fiscal
note, and I'm not quite sure if that's the way we
would have it reflected. I don't anticipate a problem
here, but I believe I want to have my administrative
people and my fiscal people take a look at that. I'm
not sure if that's the way we reflect the [RCA]. I'm
not saying that Mr. O'Tierney's wrong; I'm just saying
I'm just not certain. So, we might be making a
submission.
I do agree with him that the long and short of this is
that it is not a general fund impact. But just in
terms of some of the base-level accounting, it might
be a little bit more involved than that. But, like I
said, I don't think there's any general fund impact
here.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that HB 520 was heard and held.
HJR 45-APPOINTMENT OF U.S. REPRESENTATIVES
Number 1749
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the next order of business was
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 45, Requesting the United States
Congress to propose an amendment to the Constitution of the
United States to provide that a vacancy in the office of United
States Representative may be filled by appointment until an
election can be held.
Number 1765
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, as a member of the House Judiciary
Standing Committee, sponsor of HJR 45, presented the proposed
resolution. He explained that [HJR 45] was an outgrowth of
legislation regarding the interim election of U.S. Senators. He
referred to [a multiple page handout entitled, "Legislative
Research Report," included in the committee packet]. Page 35 of
the report is about Relevant Constitutional Provisions, and [the
first paragraph at the top of the second column] read as follows
[original punctuation provided, with some change in formatting]:
When vacancies happen in the representation of any
State in the Senate, the executive authority of such
State shall issue writs of election to fill such
vacancies: Provided, that the legislature of any
State may empower the executive thereof to make
temporary appointments until the people fill the
vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that there is no similar
language with respect to the [U.S.] House of Representatives,
thus, there is no way that a vacancy in the U.S. House of
Representatives can occur until a special election is held.
This means that there are usually months that go by without the
congressional district having any representation on the floor of
the House. Representative Gruenberg noted that this happened in
Alaska. He said the average time that elapses between the date
of vacancy and the date of election is 96 days. Since 1977,
there have been 105 vacancies in the House. He noted that these
statistics are listed in Table 1, which is part of the report.
He said U.S. Congress has never proposed a constitutional
amendment to address this issue.
Number 1882
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM asked if the reason for that might be
because Alaska is probably the only state with only one U.S.
House Representative.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recalled states that have only one U.S.
House Representative: Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, North Dakota,
South Dakota, Montana, Delaware, and New Hampshire.
Number 1937
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to page 22 of the
report [at the top of the right-hand column], which read as
follows: "The democratic character of the House is also found
in the fact that the people have elected every member of the
House, while many Senators have been appointed." He stated that
the people have a right to be represented. He said, "There have
been a number of constitutional amendments proposed, but they're
only if there are lots of vacancies in the House that those
trigger, and that shouldn't be the case."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG turned to page 2, lines 19-21 and said
the language asks to have [copies of the resolution] sent to all
members of the U.S. Congress, as well as to the presiding
officers of all the state legislatures. He said he hopes the
people involved in National Conference of State Legislatures
(NCSL) and Council of State Government Western Legislative
Conference would "take this back," because he said he thinks
it's quite important.
Number 2061
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH [moved to adopt] Amendment 1 as follows:
On page 1, line 13:
Delete "a small state"
Insert "some states"
Number 2110
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH [moved to adopt] Amendment 2 as follows:
On page 1, line 15:
Delete "small"
Insert "some"
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said, "Let me back up for the record. [Hearing]
no objection, Amendment 1 is adopted."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection to Amendment 2.
There being none, Amendment 2 was adopted.
Number 2138
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH [moved to adopt] Amendment 3 as follows:
On page 2, line 2:
Between "for" and "states"
Delete "small"
Insert "those"
Between "states" and ";and"
Insert "with a small delegation in the U.S. House of
Representatives
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection to Amendment 3.
There being none, Amendment 3 was adopted.
Number 2169
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH [moved to adopt] Amendment 4 as follows:
On page 2, line 5:
Between "even in" and ";and"
Delete "medium-sized and larger states"
Insert "states with medium or large delegations in the
U.S. House of Representatives"
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that, there being no objection,
Amendment 4 was adopted.
Number 2209
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH [moved to adopt] Amendment 5 as follows:
On page 2, line 15:
Delete "congressional"
Between "vacancies" and "are filled"
Insert "in the U.S. House of Representatives"
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that, there being no objection,
Amendment 5 was adopted.
Number 2227
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH [moved to adopt] Amendment 6 as follows:
On page 2, line 16:
Between "sent" and "to"
Insert "electronically"
Number 2265
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN noted that just using the phrase "shall be
sent" does not state how it could be sent; therefore, it would
not exclude any method.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced, "Without objection, Amendment [6] is
adopted."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if Representative Lynn's comment
was an objection to [Amendment 6].
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN answered, "Only for the sake of discussion."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH remarked, "I think what your intent here is to
get it out there so they get it, whether it's electronically or
whatever (indisc. - overlapping voices)."
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM said he had heard from Congressman Don Young
that paper mail has been slow due to the Anthrax scare and for
other security reasons, whereas e-mail is fast.
Number 2295
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN removed his objection.
[Amendment 6 was treated as adopted.]
Number 2300
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH [moved to adopt] Amendment 7 as follows:
On page 2, line 21:
Between "legislatures" and "of all other states."
Insert "and to the executives"
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested the word should be
"governors", rather than "executives".
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH concurred. He clarified that Amendment [7]
would read:
officers of all houses in the state legislatures and
to the governors of all other states.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that, [hearing] no objection,
Amendment [7] was adopted.
Number 2324
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said that the basic premise of [HJR 45]
is that congressmen will be appointed, and he stated that he has
a "basic disagreement with that notion." He said those in the
U.S. House of Representatives have to be elected, and that's the
body that's closest to the people. He stated that the people
should make the selection, even in the event of a vacancy.
TAPE 04-64, SIDE B
Number 2330
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said, "To the extent that we are moving
in the direction of allowing people to vote for their
legislators, their senators, and their congressmen, this seemed
to retreat from that direction."
Number 2320
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that, initially, the U.S.
Constitution was consistent for both U.S. House Representatives
and U.S. Senators. He observed that, back in the days when the
country was much smaller, state legislators could convene to
address the issue of a vacant seat, so there was no need for an
interim appointment in either body. He stated, "It wasn't until
the Seventeenth Amendment was passed in 1912 - and they took the
concept of elections by the state legislators and turned it into
a popular election for U.S. Senators - that the issue arose."
He speculated as follows:
I think, probably, the theory was that, back in those
days when the country was much smaller and the states
were smaller, they could convene the state legislators
to call a special session or deal with it at that
point. And so, there was no question of any need for
an interim appointment in either body. But once they
looked at the issue again in 1912 and made the
election of senators by popular vote, they felt that
they then had to have a mechanism - or at least the
state should be permitted to have a mechanism - for
temporary appointments, because it takes a certain
amount of time to have a special election. And they
cured the problem with respect to the Senate, at that
time; they didn't do it, with respect to the House.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG indicated that he didn't know the
reason for that, but he stated that the real question is whether
it's good public policy to allow the state to make that
decision. He clarified that the proposed legislation would not
make it mandatory for a state to have a temporary appointment
mechanism, but it would allow state legislatures to make that
determination. He stated that the issue is representation.
Number 2188
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ opined that the issue is regarding the
difference between appointing and electing legislators. He
stated, "And I don't think we should ever be in the business of
appointing people when an election would suffice." He mentioned
that there is currently proposed legislation that supports the
move toward elections over appointments. He stated, "The
majority of people in our caucus, Representative Gruenberg,
believe that election is the preferred course."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG responded, "That may be the case, and I
added a provision to keep a temporary appointment in for the
same reason. I may be a minority in my own caucus here, but I
think I'm of the majority of the folks in the state."
Number 2140
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 8, which read
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Page 2, line 6: Insert new language:
WHEREAS having a method of quickly filling
vacancies in the United States House of
Representatives would be beneficial to the nation in
the event of a large number of vacancies due to the
occurrence of a disaster or terrorist attack; and
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH objected.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that the U.S. Congress has been
focusing recently on the issue of dealing with disaster or
terrorist attack; however, the issue was not conceived of when
the resolution was being drafted.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH suggested deleting "due to the occurrence of a
disaster or terrorist attack".
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked what other reason might there be
for a large number of vacancies.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH explained that he was raised under the
philosophy that thinking makes it so.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG responded that he doesn't think putting
the language in the amendment will determine whether a terrorist
attack will occur.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said he thinks "we're going to stop that before
it happens," and the committee knows that the purpose of the
amendment is "in case something happens." He explained that he
just didn't want to put the specific language in the amendment.
Number 2075
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ directed attention to page 9 of the
previously sited report. He continued as follows:
There's mention of several proposal[s] in the House
and in the Senate of the U.S. that talk about proposed
solutions to the House vacancy problem. This
resolution doesn't point to any one of them in
particular, and that, to me, is a fatal flaw. If
we're encouraging them to do something for the reasons
that are specified here, it's got the same fate of any
resolution that arrives on our desk. We appreciate
the input, but unless there's something substantive or
compelling about it, it's just going to be tossed.
... This is too general; it's not specific enough.
And the resolutions that are mentioned there talk
about the incapacity of substantial portions of
Congress and the need to fill ... those vacancies for
national emergency purposes. So, it's not the thrust
of this resolution.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG responded that obviously Congress has
taken the position that Representative Berkowitz has, that there
shouldn't be an interim appointment. He said it seems to him
that most people in the country would not want there to be a
vacancy in their delegation for any period of time. He said,
"And maybe this is going to be a spark that ignites some people
to start talking about this issue here in this country."
Number 1989
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH withdrew his objection to Amendment 8. He asked
if there was any further objection. There being none, Amendment
8 was adopted.
Number 1962
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to report HJR 45, [as amended],
out of committee with individual recommendations [and the
accompanying fiscal note].
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected.
Number 1950
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gruenberg, Holm,
Seaton, and Lynn voted in favor of HJR 45, as amended.
Representatives Coghill, Berkowitz, and Weyhrauch voted against
it. Therefore, CSHJR 45(STA) was reported out of the House
State Affairs Standing Committee by a vote of 4-3.
HB 411-PF DIVIDEND APPLICATION RECORDS PRIVATE
Number 1940
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the last order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 411, "An Act relating to an optional election to
prevent the name and address of a permanent fund dividend
applicant from being disclosed, except to a state or federal
agency."
Number 1932
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM moved to adopt the committee substitute (CS)
for HB 411, Version 23-LS1568\D, as a work draft.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH objected for discussion purposes.
Number 1881
REPRESENTATIVE ERIC CROFT, Alaska State Legislature, as sponsor
of HB 411, noted that there is another committee substitute,
Version 23-LS1596\H, Cook, 4/15/04, which was labeled "CS FOR
SENATE BILL NO. 284( )", but is in the committee packets with
"SENATE" crossed out and changed to "HOUSE" and "284" crossed
out and changed to "411". He explained that [Version H]
proposes putting the permanent fund dividend (PFD) applicants'
names on the web site, but not the applicants' addresses. He
explained that there are two approaches to the legislation: a
check box method or the approach that includes names, but not
addresses.
Number 1794
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said the legislation which will most
protect people's privacy is the preferred course to follow. He
said choosing to receive a PFD shouldn't require that private
information be disclosed. He indicated that the version offered
in the other body is somewhat preferable.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that [Version H] addresses the
concern stated by Representative Coghill [at a prior hearing on
HB 411] regarding opting in and opting out. He explained that
[Version H] would "opt everyone out for the address," so people
wouldn't have to look for and check a box to prevent their
addresses from being listed.
Number 1746
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated his preference for [Version D],
but he suggested that the committee "walk through the
differences" to consider using language from [Version H].
Number 1720
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG [moved to adopt] Amendment 1, to
replace line 12, on page 1 of Version D, with line 9, on page 1
of Version H. [Page 1, line 12 read as follows:]
(1) to a state or federal agency;
[Page 1, line 9 read as follows:]
(1) to a local, state, or federal government
agency;
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH explained, "We have a CS before us for
discussion purposes, and there's an objection, and the sponsor
has provided a Senate bill, which he's proposing to just
supplant the existing House bill before us. Is it your -- you
sort of have to have a policy matter here to work off the bill
that's before us, or withdraw the motion on that and work off
the proposed CS."
Number 1689
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew his motion.
Number 1679
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said it seems that it's a much less
complicated system to restrict the address information;
therefore, he stated that he supports the Senate version.
Number 1948
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection to "moving the
CS for HB 411" [Version 23-LS1596\H, Cook, 4/15/04, which was
labeled "CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 284( ) as a work draft].
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH noted that Representative Gruenberg had stated
an objection.
Number 1636
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that, in [Version D], both the
names and addresses are confidential. He stated that he thinks
the names should be confidential.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM said he disagrees. He said one of the
reasons that the names are so important is so that those who
live in Alaska can make accusations against those who commit
fraud against the system. He referred to [the letter in the
committee packet from a woman whose ability to keep her identity
private is a matter of life and death] and surmised that people
in that sort of situation would generally have changed their
names, and he said that he hoped the person who was trying to
track them down wouldn't have any way to make a connection.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, regarding the name change, stated that
[an adult] who changes his/her name "has to publish." A
different rule applies to changing the name of a minor; the
other parent must be notified.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM suggested that legislation may need to be
enacted, possibly to give people the option of "some type of
review under domestic abuse."
Number 1512
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH offered the following consideration:
In my experience as a law clerk, the court took a
petition for name change in camera and protected the
person who was subjected to potential murder, and had
it within their jurisdiction to deal with that without
(indisc. -- vocal level dropped).
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM stated, "Were I to face murder or the murder
of my children, I can assure you, to perjure myself would not be
a problem. And I don't think anyone would argue with it."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH stated his preference is for [Version H from the
Senate]. However, he said he has a philosophical problem,
because [the PFD] is the public's resource and he thinks that if
people want to claim money, then other people ought to know who
is doing the claiming. He surmised that since it's the people's
fund, it's fine to let the people review and debate the issue.
Number 1449
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG removed his objection [to adopting the
committee substitute (CS) for HB 422, Version 23-LS1596\H, Cook,
4/15/04, which was labeled "CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 284( )" as a
work draft]. There being no further objection, Version H was
before the committee.
Number 1445
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH [moved to adopt Amendment 1 to Version H] as
follows:
On page 1, line 10:
Between "court order" and ";"
Insert "including a rit of execution"
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM objected.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH explained that, in a situation where someone
owes a person money, a writ of execution is required by the
Permanent Fund Dividend Division, in order to lay claim on the
debtor's PFD to pay off the debt.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted for the record that Ms. Barton, from
the Permanent Fund Dividend Division, nodded her head in
concurrence.
Number 1350
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH [announced that no objection was stated;
therefore, Amendment 1 to Version H was adopted.]
Number 1329
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH moved to adopt HB 411 for discussion purposes
and "replace all of HB 411 with this work draft 23-LS1596\H
[which was labeled "CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 284( )"] and insert
that in lieu of the original HB 411. Is there objection to
that?"
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if that would be Amendment 2.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced, "I'm going to back up now." He noted
that Representative Holm had withdrawn his motion. He asked
Representative Seaton to move [to adopt] Version D again.
Number 1313
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved [to adopt the committee substitute
(CS)] for HB 411, Version 23-LS1568\D, [as a work draft].
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that there is no objection;
[therefore, Version D was before the committee].
Number 1265
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH moved "to replace Version D with the 23-
LS1596\H, [which was labeled "CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 284( )"],
which the sponsor gave us, and gut 411 and replace it." He
asked if there was any objection.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM noted that the title in both versions is
considerably different, and asked what effect that would have.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH offered his understanding that "we'll have to
amend the 411, by replacing both the title and the (indisc. -
microphone interference) of 411 with Version -- work draft H."
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM said, "And that's how it should be framed."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH clarified that his motion was to replace all of
Version D with Version H [which was labeled "CS FOR SENATE BILL
NO. 284( )"], including its title. He asked if there was any
objection. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
Number 1250
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH [moved to adopt] Amendment 2 as follows:
On page 1, line 10:
Between "court order" and ";"
Insert "including a rit of execution"
[Amendment 2 was originally Amendment 1 to Version H.]
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection to Amendment 2.
There being none, Amendment 2 was adopted.
Number 1238
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL directed attention to [page 1, line 13],
which read as follows: "(4) as directed to do so by the
applicant." He noted that that language was clearer in [Version
D - the "House version"] and asked the sponsor, "Is that
something that would be instigated by the department or by the
individual?"
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT replied that part of the goal of the Senate
version was to eliminate the check box and "have a default." He
said, "I think it would be by letter to the department, saying,
'You can release my information to whoever.'"
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL suggested that "we're creating a bigger
barrier and it needs to be just a cleaner way of doing it." He
asked the sponsor to confirm that his intent is that [the
release of confidential information] would have to be initiated
by the applicant and not requested by the department.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he agrees with that.
Notwithstanding that, he pointed out that there are lots of
other sources in which to find out confidential information
about a person, [such as their name and address].
Number 1133
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered an example, whereby a student
might be applying for a student loan for college and needed the
Permanent Fund Dividend Division to send some sort of
verification, so the student would direct the division to
release the information. He asked if that is what the intent of
the language is [paragraph (4), on page 1, line 13].
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT answered yes. He added that he knew there
would be many other examples that he and the committee may not
think of ahead of time, and [paragraph (4)] would cover those
possibilities by giving the individual the power to release
his/her confidential information. Representative Croft
suggested that [Version H] may strike the balance between a
public resource and the protection of privacy that Chair
Weyhrauch had previously indicated he was seeking.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked Representative Croft to confirm that
"as directed to do so by the applicant" meant for a specific
purpose, not "broadly disseminated to anybody that requests from
the department."
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT confirmed that was so.
Number 1048
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated his preference for certain
confidentiality language in the original [Version D, before it
was subsumed by Version H].
Number 1006
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 3, to delete
line 13 of the current Version D [which is language that was
Version H], and replace it with the language with [the original
Version D, which was] on page 1, line 14. [With the amendment,
paragraph (4) would read: "as directed by the individual who
made the confidentiality election."]
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced, "There's objection for that."
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated that [Amendment 3] would create a
problem, because [paragraph (3)] "says who made the
confidentiality election, and there was an election in the
original version; you made an election to keep it confidential."
He indicated that in the version before the committee, there is
nobody who's made that election.
Number 0963
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew Amendment 3.
Number 0957
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to language on page
1, line 11, which read "to the individual", and he suggested
that should be changed to read "to an individual".
Number 0923
SHARON BARTON, Director, Central Office, Permanent Fund Dividend
Division, Department of Revenue, stated that the [new Version D
before the committee] would result in a zero fiscal note and
would be fine, with one exception. She prefaced her explanation
by saying that "as directed to do so by the applicant" may be
sufficient, but she stated that the division believes that it
will need the ability to give the confidential information to a
banking institution if it is trying to correct a direct deposit
error. She noted that every year, there are direct deposit
errors, because an applicant has transposed a number or the
division has keyed a number in incorrectly. In sorting that out
with the bank, she explained, the division often needs a social
security number and address in order to get the precise account
for deposit.
Number 0800
MS. BARTON suggested a possible amendment to add a paragraph
that might read, "to a banking institution to correct direct
deposit errors".
Number 0823
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he wonders if the existing proposed
language giving authority to the department to release
confidential information to local, state, or federal government
agencies, or "as directed to do so by the applicant" doesn't
already "give you the authority to write that into your
disclaimer."
MS. BARTON responded that that might be a possibility, but
indicated that there is not much room left on the application
form.
Number 0760
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, in response to a question from Chair
Weyhrauch, said that he doesn't have an objection to Ms.
Barton's suggestion for an amendment, but he just doesn't know
if it is necessary to add more language to the bill.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked Ms. Barton to clarify what the division
needs.
MS. BARTON responded as follows:
Well, under "as directed to do so by the applicant",
if we included a waiver ... within the direct deposit
they give us, that we may have to do that, I think we
would be covered legally in sharing it then. That's
another option.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM stated that the alternative to that is that
"they don't get the dividend check." He indicated that the
division and the applicant can work it out; therefore, he
questioned why the language would be necessary in statute.
MS. BARTON explained that it would take one more step out of the
process; the division wouldn't have to write to the applicant to
ask for a letter and then wait to get the letter back from the
applicant before it can go to work with the bank to sort it out.
Number 0643
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he doesn't have a problem with having
another line in the bill so that there is no need to add
anything to the application itself.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG emphasized that, in the past, there
have been directors [of the Permanent Fund Dividend Division]
who have been difficult to work with. He indicated that he
would support adding the necessary language if it would help.
Number 0548
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH indicated that Conceptual Amendment 4 would add
a [paragraph (5)], "to a financial institution for the purpose
of depositing the permanent fund" or "funds", or "check".
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt [Conceptual Amendment 4].
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked what the check would be called.
MS. BARTON replied that it is a dividend.
Number 0499
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection to Conceptual
Amendment [4]. There being none, it was adopted.
Number 0492
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to report HB 411, as amended, [out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes].
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH closed public testimony. He clarified that the
motion was to move Version D, as amended. There being no
objection, CSHB 411(STA) was reported out of the House State
Affairs Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 0428
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:34
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|