Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/30/2004 08:05 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
April 30, 2004
8:05 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 BILL NO. 461
"An Act relating to enhanced 911 surcharges and to emergency
services dispatch systems of municipalities, certain villages,
and public corporations established by municipalities."
- MOVED CSHB 461(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 536
"An Act relating to applications for permanent fund dividends by
certain individuals serving in the armed forces; and providing
for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 536(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 557
"An Act regarding lobbyist prohibitions."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 460
"An Act relating to absences to provide care for certain
relatives for purposes of permanent fund dividend eligibility;
and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 25
Recommending that certain federal funding restrictions be eased
so that more villages in Alaska would qualify for assistance
relating to flooding and erosion.
- MOVED SJR 25 OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 227(STA) am
"An Act relating to municipal runoff elections and to municipal
initiative and referendum elections."
- MOVED HCS CSSB 227(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 461
SHORT TITLE: EMERGENCY SERVICES DISPATCH/911 SURCHARGE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) HOLM
02/16/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/16/04 (H) CRA, STA
03/02/04 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
03/02/04 (H) Heard & Held <Subcommittee Assigned>
03/02/04 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
04/27/04 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
04/27/04 (H) Moved CSHB 461(CRA) Out of Committee
04/27/04 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
04/28/04 (H) CRA RPT CS(CRA) NT 1DP 5NR
04/28/04 (H) DP: MORGAN; NR: ANDERSON, KOOKESH,
04/28/04 (H) SAMUELS, WOLF, CISSNA
04/29/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/29/04 (H) Heard & Held
04/29/04 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/30/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 536
SHORT TITLE: PFUND APPLICATION DEADLINES FOR MILITARY
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF ECON DEV, INT TRADE & TOURISM
03/15/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/15/04 (H) MLV, STA
04/06/04 (H) MLV AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/06/04 (H) Moved CSHB 536(MLV) Out of Committee
04/06/04 (H) MINUTE(MLV)
04/07/04 (H) MLV RPT CS(MLV) NT 4DP 1NR
04/07/04 (H) DP: LYNN, MASEK, CISSNA, STEPOVICH;
04/07/04 (H) NR: DAHLSTROM
04/30/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 557
SHORT TITLE: LOBBYIST PROHIBITIONS
SPONSOR(S): RULES
04/21/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/21/04 (H) STA
04/26/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/26/04 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed to 4/30>
04/30/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 460
SHORT TITLE: ALLOWABLE ABSENCES AND PFDS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KERTTULA
02/16/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/16/04 (H) STA, FIN
04/01/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/01/04 (H) Heard & Held
04/01/04 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/30/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: SJR 25
SHORT TITLE: FLOODING AND EROSION CONTROL ASSISTANCE
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) OLSON
02/06/04 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/06/04 (S) CRA, STA
02/25/04 (S) CRA AT 1:30 PM FAHRENKAMP 203
02/25/04 (S) Moved SJR 25 Out of Committee
02/25/04 (S) MINUTE(CRA)
02/27/04 (S) CRA RPT 5DP
02/27/04 (S) DP: STEDMAN, LINCOLN, STEVENS G, ELTON,
02/27/04 (S) WAGONER
03/30/04 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/30/04 (S) Moved SJR 25 Out of Committee
03/30/04 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/31/04 (S) STA RPT 4DP
03/31/04 (S) DP: STEVENS G, COWDERY, STEDMAN, GUESS
04/16/04 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/16/04 (S) VERSION: SJR 25
04/19/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/19/04 (H) CRA, STA
04/27/04 (H) CRA RPT 5DP
04/27/04 (H) DP: ANDERSON, SAMUELS, WOLF, KOOKESH,
04/27/04 (H) MORGAN
04/27/04 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
04/27/04 (H) Moved Out of Committee
04/27/04 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
04/30/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: SB 227
SHORT TITLE: MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) STEVENS G
05/15/03 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/15/03 (S) CRA, STA
02/18/04 (S) CRA AT 1:30 PM FAHRENKAMP 203
02/18/04 (S) Moved SB 227 Out of Committee
02/18/04 (S) MINUTE(CRA)
02/19/04 (S) CRA RPT 4DP 1NR
02/19/04 (S) DP: STEDMAN, LINCOLN, WAGONER,
02/19/04 (S) STEVENS G; NR: ELTON
02/24/04 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
02/24/04 (S) Heard & Held
02/24/04 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/26/04 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
02/26/04 (S) Moved CSSB 227(STA) Out of Committee
02/26/04 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/27/04 (S) STA RPT CS FORTHCOMING 1DP 2NR
02/27/04 (S) DP: STEVENS G; NR: COWDERY, STEDMAN
03/01/04 (S) STA CS RECEIVED SAME TITLE
03/26/04 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/26/04 (S) VERSION: CSSB 227(STA) AM
03/29/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/29/04 (H) CRA, STA
04/27/04 (H) CRA RPT 1DP 4NR 1AM
04/27/04 (H) DP: ANDERSON; NR: SAMUELS, WOLF,
04/27/04 (H) KOOKESH, MORGAN; AM: CISSNA
04/27/04 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
04/27/04 (H) Moved Out of Committee
04/27/04 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
04/30/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
MATTHEW RUDIG, Staff
to Representative Jim Holm
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of Representative Holm,
sponsor of HB 461.
LINDA FREED, City Manager
City of Kodiak
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 461.
DAVID GIBBS, Emergency Manager
Kenai Peninsula Borough
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of increased local
control over surcharge assessment and answered questions, during
the hearing on HB 461.
STEVE THOMPSON, Mayor
City of Fairbanks
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 461.
JIM HARPRING, Member
National Emergency Numbering Association (NENA)
(No address provided.)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 461.
BILL DOOLITTLE, Project Manager
Municipality of Anchorage
(No address provided.)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 461.
GAIL VOIGTLANDER, Chief Assistant Attorney General - Statewide
Section Supervisor
Torts and Worker's Compensation Section
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the department
during the hearing on HB 461.
JAMES R. JACKSON JR., Attorney at Law
General Communications Incorporated (GCI)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Suggested a change of language for HB 461.
JOHN FULLENWIDER, Fire Chief
Municipality of Anchorage
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 461.
MARK MEW, President
Alaska Chapter
National Emergency Number Association (NENA)
(No address provided.)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 461.
ALLEN STOREY, Lieutenant
Central Office
Division of Alaska State Troopers
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of specific proposed
language in Section 1 of HB 461, Version Z.
JON BITTNER, Staff
to Representative Cheryll Heinze
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 536 on behalf of
Representative Heinze, sponsor; answered questions during the
hearing on HB 557.
REPRESENTATIVE CHERYLL HEINZE
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions, as sponsor of HB 536;
presented HB 557, as sponsor.
SHARON BARTON, Director
Central Office
Permanent Fund Dividend Division
Department of Revenue
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to a question, on behalf of the
department, during the hearing on HB 536.
HAROLD HEINZE
(No address provided.)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of himself during the
hearing on HB 557.
TAMMY KEMPTON, Regulation of Lobbying
Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC)
Department of Administration
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on behalf of APOC,
during the hearing on HB 557.
PAMELA LaBOLLE, President
Alaska State Chamber of Commerce (ASCC)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 557.
AURORA HAUKE, Staff
to Representative Beth Kerttula
Alaska State Legislature
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 460, on
behalf of Representative Kerttula, sponsor.
HAVEN HARRIS, Staff
to Senator Donny Olson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced SJR 25 on behalf of Senator
Olson, sponsor.
SENATOR GARY STEVENS
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As sponsor, presented SB 227.
DALE STRAUBE, Staff
to Senator Ben Stevens
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on behalf of Senator Ben
Stevens.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 04-74, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR BRUCE WEYHRAUCH called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:05 a.m. Representatives Holm,
Seaton, Lynn, and Weyhrauch were present at the call to order.
Representatives Coghill, Berkowitz, and Gruenberg arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 461-EMERGENCY SERVICES DISPATCH/911 SURCHARGE
[Contains discussion of HB 499.]
Number 0024
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the first order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 461, "An Act relating to enhanced 911 surcharges
and to emergency services dispatch systems of municipalities,
certain villages, and public corporations established by
municipalities."
Number 0044
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH offered his understanding that a motion had been
made at the [4/29/04] meeting to adopt the committee substitute
(CS) for HB 461, Version 23-LS1633\Z, Cook, 4/28/04, as a work
draft and an objection had been made to that motion. [No
further discussion took place regarding that objection, the
committee treated Version Z as adopted.]
Number 0085
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH moved to adopt Amendment 1, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Page 3, Line 22
Delete "resolution or"
Page 3, Line 31
Delete "resolution or"
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM objected [for discussion purposes].
Number 0100
MATTHEW RUDIG, Staff to Representative Jim Holm, Alaska State
Legislature, testifying on behalf of Representative Holm,
sponsor of HB 461, explained the purpose of Amendment 1 is to
clear up language in current statute.
Number 0150
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM withdrew his objection. There being no
further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
Number 0169
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM moved to adopt Amendment 2, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Page 3, Line 26
Insert after company ", competitive local
exchange company"
Page 4, Line 21
Insert after company ", or a competitive local
exchange company"
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH objected.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM indicated that Amendment 2 defines what [the
local companies] are.
Number 0245
MR. RUDIG said Amendment 2 clarifies that all phone companies in
the state are covered under the bill.
Number 0281
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH removed his objection to Amendment 2 and asked
if there was any further objection. There being none, Amendment
2 was adopted.
Number 0339
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM moved to adopt Amendment 3, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Page 5, Line 26
Insert after company "competitive exchange
company, wireless reseller,"
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN objected for discussion purposes.
MR. RUDIG clarified how the language would read with Amendment
3. In response to a question from Chair Weyhrauch, he confirmed
that, in formulating the amendments that the committee is
considering today, he had some contact with the following: the
Alaska Municipal League (AML), the National Emergency Numbering
Association (NENA), [Alaska Communication Systems, Inc. (ACS)],
and [General Communications Incorporated (GCI)].
Number 0495
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN removed his objection.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any further objection. There
being none, Amendment 3 was adopted.
Number 0509
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM moved to adopt Amendment 4, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Page 5, Line 24
Delete "(1)"
Insert "(6)"
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN objected.
MR. RUDIG directed that committee's attention to page 2, lines
16-20, which read as follows:
(6) is based on the exercise or performance
of a duty in connection with an emergency services
dispatch system or an enhanced 911 system, including
providing, maintaining, or operating any toll-free,
statewide default public safety answering point, and
is not based on an intentional act or omission
amounting to misconduct or on an act or omission
amounting to gross negligence.
MR. RUDIG explained that Amendment 4 is a cross-reference [to
that language]. He added, "And that was the suggestion of
[Gail] Voigtlander, [Department of Law]."
Number 0587
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN removed his objection.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any further objection. There
being none, Amendment 4 was adopted.
Number 0608
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM moved to adopt Amendment 5, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Page 4, Line 28
Delete "address"
Insert "statement"
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH objected.
Number 0644
MR. RUDIG offered his understanding that Amendment 5 would help
phone companies delineate between residential and commercial
properties.
Number 0653
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if a series of buildings rented out
as apartments would be considered commercial or residential.
MR. RUDIG answered that "it would be per residential line in ...
an apartment building."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said people get a statement in the mail and
numerous people may get statements within one address.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that he is trying to figure out
if there are any situations in which there are multiple
residents in one place with only one statement generated.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM clarified that [the statement] would be sent
to the address.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH removed his objection. He asked if there was
any further objection to Amendment 5. There being none, it was
so ordered.
Number 0738
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM moved to adopt Amendment 6, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Page 4, Line 24
Insert after company "or wireless reseller,"
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN objected.
MR. RUDIG observed that Amendment 6 is similar to the previously
adopted Amendments 2 and 3; it is all-inclusive.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN withdrew his objection.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there were further objections. There
being none, Amendment 6 was adopted.
Number 0975
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the committee would hear public
testimony.
Number 0882
LINDA FREED, City Manager, City of Kodiak, emphasized that HB
461 is an important issue to the City of Kodiak, which is the
regional public safety answering point for the entire Kodiak
area. She said the city operates the enhanced E-911 system for
the Kodiak road system. She stated that the most important
portion of the bill is [Section 4], which would, by ordinance,
give the city the ability to set a levy at the appropriate level
for the community. She said, "We would urge your passage of
this legislation, so that it may go on to the [House] floor and
perhaps to the Senate and get ... passed this year." Ms. Freed
offered to answer questions.
Number 0960
MS. FREED, in response to questions from Representative Seaton,
revealed that [the City of Kodiak's] current charge is at a cap
of 75 cents per month, per line. She predicted that the city
would continue to subsidize with other tax resources, such as
its sales tax. She said, "I believe the city council would look
at trying to recoup some additional revenue from the levy, but
would not levy the entire amount to pay for the whole system."
MS. FREED, in response to a question from Chair Weyhrauch, noted
that another portion of the bill that [the city] likes is that
it would be able to "use the funds to help pay for dispatch
services." She continued as follows:
E-911 is only the calls coming into the center; we
actually have a large infrastructure built up to have
the calls go out of the center. So, we spend,
roughly, $500,000 annually to operate our E-911 and
emergency dispatch center. So, we bring in roughly
$45-50,000 a year from the current levy. So, it's a
substantial local government subsidy, through sales
tax.
Number 1061
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to page 4,
[beginning on line 16 through line 19], which read as follows:
The municipality may [ONLY] use the enhanced 911
surcharge for the enhanced 911 system and for the
actual labor and equipment used to provide emergency
services dispatch, but not for costs of providing the
medical, police, fire, rescue, or other emergency
service, or for any other purpose.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Ms. Freed, "Do you support that
limitation on your local power?"
MS. FREED answered yes. She said she interprets that language
as allowing a broader use of the funds. She added, "We don't
intend to use any of the levy that we might be able to assess
for actual response activities."
Number 1115
DAVID GIBBS, Emergency Manager, Kenai Peninsula Borough, told
the committee that he is a resident of Soldotna and administers
the 911 program for the borough. He stated that the borough
applauds the increased local control over the surcharge
assessment, because it will enable the borough to recover more
[money]. Currently, all the municipalities in the borough run a
deficit of approximately $1.8 million and collect approximately
$650,000 in surcharge revenue. The cost for all of the
jurisdictions, including all of the cities, is approximately
$2.5 million for 911 and dispatch services.
MR. GIBBS noted that the bill does not define the term
"emergency services dispatch", and therefore he suggested adding
a definition to AS 29.35.137, based on the national standards of
either NENA or the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA).
The definition should include computer-aided dispatch and other
processes by which an alarm received at a communication center
[is] transmitted to an emergency response facility or to
emergency response units in the field.
MR. RUDIG noted that there was a definition of "emergency
services dispatch" and he doesn't know why it was pulled out.
Number 1260
MR. GIBBS, in response to a question from Representative
Berkowitz, noted that one of the definitions to which he had
referred could be found in the NFPA standard 12.21.1221.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked how the public would benefit from having
that definition included in the bill.
MR. GIBBS answered as follows:
Well, in our situation, in the Kenai Peninsula
Borough, the borough assumes the responsibility for
call-taking, E-911 services. Many of the cities, for
example, Kenai, Homer, and Seward, actually provide
dispatch services. One of the ... concerns we have
about this bill: If the Act doesn't clarify how
revenues are to be collected and disseminated, based
upon the differing services amongst differing
municipalities.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM asked why it wouldn't be okay for the
municipalities to "figure it out themselves." Furthermore, he
asked why the legislature would want to "put it in state statute
to tell you how to disseminate the funds to individual
municipalities within a borough." He offered his understanding
that the Kenai Peninsula Borough is a second class borough,
which he said is the same as the Fairbanks [Northstar] Borough,
where the dispatch center is run by the City of Fairbanks, not
the borough.
MR. GIBBS replied that [the Kenai Peninsula Borough] runs the
centralized call-taking facility and dispatch center. He added,
"We also have a borough-run dispatch center and the cities also
run dispatch centers."
Number 1352
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he hopes that definition will be
included in the bill. He noted that "all the other terms are
defined under [AS] 29.35.137.
Number 1365
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked Mr. Gibbs if he is saying that he
would like to see the revenues go to 911 receiving centers, but
that he doesn't want to see them funneled off to fund local
dispatch systems, such as "regular police and fire" dispatch
systems.
MR. GIBBS stated his concern is that if the revenue collections
are not adequate to cover "the total cost of both services,
we're going to be faced with a situation on how to allocate
those revenues between multiple jurisdictions."
Number 1410
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH turned to the definition, which read as follows:
"emergency services dispatch" means a service
offered by a municipality that provides continuous day
and night dispatch of emergency medical, police, fire,
or rescue services using enhanced 911 facilities.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked Representative Berkowitz if he would offer
that as [Conceptual Amendment 7].
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said, "I would offer that if we strike
the term 'by a municipality', because it's not always offered by
a municipality."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH clarified that [Conceptual Amendment 7, as
amended] would read:
"emergency services dispatch" means a
service offered that provides continuous day and night
dispatch of emergency medical, police, fire, or rescue
services using enhanced 911 facilities.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH objected [to Conceptual Amendment 7, as amended,
for discussion purposes].
Number 1450
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if that definition comes from the
NFPA source previously referred to by Mr. Gibbs.
MR. GIBBS answered he doesn't know.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that the committee look at
the definition referenced by Mr. Gibbs, because it is apparently
a well-defined term.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said he would like to take action on the
amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his understanding that if
["enhanced 911 system"] is defined in Title 29, then it needs to
be referenced in the amendment to Title 9, in Sections 1 and 2
of the bill, otherwise "they won't necessarily look back at
Title 29 for the definition."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH suggested a conforming amendment.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH removed his objection to Amendment 7, [as
amended]. He asked if there was any further objection.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked, "Does that require that it be an
enhanced 911 system, or is that just an option under that
definition?"
Number 1535
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM noted that the title of the bill deals with
enhanced 911 and 911 emergency dispatch systems. He suggested
that the word "enhanced" could be deleted.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to page 2, line 17,
which refers to "emergency services dispatch system or an
enhanced 911 system". He said, "So, presumably, some of these
places might not have enhanced systems."
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM reiterated that "emergency services dispatch
systems" is in the title of the bill.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked again if there was any further objection
to Amendment 7, [as amended]. There being none, Amendment 7,
[as amended], was adopted.
Number 1588
MR. GIBBS turned to Section 4 of the bill, which would amend AS
29.35.131(a) by authorizing a surcharge, based upon each
exchange billing statement for wireline telephones. He stated,
"We, as a borough, strongly encourage the existing language to
remain, where the charge is based on access lines for wireline
telephones." He noted that many addresses have numerous
wireline telephones, and the borough's costs for maintaining,
for example, ALI [automatic location identification] database
information are not reduced by virtue of telephones' sharing the
same billing address. He continued as follows:
By only authorizing one surcharge per billing address,
the state is requiring those people with one telephone
line to subsidize those with more than one telephone
line to their billing address.
MR. GIBBS added that imposing a surcharge based upon billing
address is (indisc.) national practice.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said, "Basically, ... this is a motion to
rescind our action in adopting Amendment 5, which deleted
"address" and inserted "statement". He offered his
understanding that Mr. Gibbs wants the word "address" added
back.
MR. GIBBS clarified, "Actually, we would encourage the charge to
be based on access line, which is the language of the original
bill version."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH observed that Mr. Gibbs was referring to the
language on page 4, lines 28-29, which read: "on a local
exchange billing address [ACCESS LINE] for a wireline
telephone."
Number 1681
MR. RUDIG said the point of enhanced 911 is that the responder
will go to the office from which the call originates.
Therefore, it is fairer for people in a residence with multiple
lines to only pay one surcharge. He said it was a compromise
worked out with AML; the intent was not to have those people
charged for their modem and facsimile lines, for example.
Number 1745
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, regarding the previously adopted
Amendment 5, directed attention to page 4, line 5, and suggested
that Amendment 5 be made conceptual, to cover any other places
in the bill where "billing address" should go.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH stated, "So noted for the record, to make it
consistent; I'll just write that on the amendment."
Number 1766
MR. RUDIG, in response to a question from Representative
Berkowitz, offered his understanding that an access line is "any
line you can dial 911 from." He noted that the definition could
be found in AS 29.135.137.
Number 1824
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ sought clarification as follows:
I'm sort of seeing three schemes that are emerging
here, and this is why I wish this was over in the RCA.
Access lines - pretty much every phone gets a charge.
Statement means if you bundle it, that could be like a
big bundling. And, I guess, in between those two is
per address. So, if you want to do it [so that]
everybody pays based on their phone, it's access line.
If you want to do it ... only per customer, you would
do it [by] statement, because whether [or not] you're
... the biggest company in the world, you can get one
statement. And if you want to do something in
between, you'd do address. Is that right?
MR. RUDIG offered his belief that it is the intent of the
sponsor that each residential member who has multiple lines in
his/her home pays one enhanced 911 surcharge. A business with
multiple lines would pay a surcharge on each line.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM added, "That's correct - up to 100."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ clarified that the distinction is
between residential and commercial, but he said commercial could
still be on an access line basis.
MR. RUDIG said he believes that's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified that the discussion is in regard
to phone lines, not phones themselves. He said, "You may have
10 phones in your house ... accessing one line, or you may have
three lines."
Number 1896
MR. GIBBS proffered that the borough also pays a charge per
access line for maintaining the database information.
Presently, that charge is approximately 18 cents per line, which
comes off the top of the 75-cent surcharge per access line. He
said the expectation is that charge will rise as new [automatic
location identification (ALI)] database maintenance agreements
are made.
MR. GIBBS stated a concern regarding billing statements for
which the revenues may be improperly distributed among the
municipalities. For example, in the Kenai Peninsula Borough,
many residents from outside of the cities - but still
technically in the borough - use a billing address at post
office boxes inside the city. Mr. Gibbs suggested that there
may have to be a better mechanism for distributing the costs and
collecting the revenue associated with delivering the services.
Number 1939
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there is any distinction made if a
business is operated out of a home.
MR. RUDIG said he doesn't know. He surmised that it would
depend upon the local exchange companies, because those
companies have different rates for residential and commercial
[lines].
Number 1974
MR. GIBBS said:
Remember that telephone companies only provide
telecommunications; they don't inquire as to the
purpose of the occupancy. Our jurisdiction would be
severely challenged, in terms of resources, to ...
compare telephone subscriber records with business
licenses or building permits, to determine the type of
occupancy. So, we would have no way of determining
whether it's a residential line or business located
within a residence.
MR. RUDIG related that he has been told that telephone companies
can make that distinction.
Number 2018
STEVE THOMPSON, Mayor, City of Fairbanks, emphasized that the
city supports HB 461, Version Z, and the amendments that were
just adopted. He said, "We think this is really going to help
pay for that emergency dispatch and phone-taking services." He
noted that Version Z would replace language, which would result
in the city being able to enhance its 911 system and pay for
that service. He added that he thinks it's important for and
will help the entire state. He thanked Representative Holm and
Mr. Rudig for their efforts in introducing HB 461.
Number 2061
JIM HARPRING, Member, National Emergency Numbering Association
(NENA), directed the committee's attention to page 4, line 7.
He mentioned the difference between residential billing
addresses versus large, industrial areas, in terms of revenue.
He offered an example of a hospital where there would be
multiple lines, but only one billing address. He observed that
that concept doesn't "appear to be any place in the current
[bill version]."
MR. RUDIG stated that it would be the purview of the committee
whether to [allow] more municipal control regarding exemptions.
Number 2156
BILL DOOLITTLE, Project Manager, Municipality of Anchorage, told
the committee that he manages the upgraded 911 system. He
stated his support of HB 461, because he said it would show
significant improvements for 911 programs, statewide. He
offered to answer questions.
Number 2188
GAIL VOIGTLANDER, Chief Assistant Attorney General - Statewide
Section Supervisor, Torts and Worker's Compensation Section,
Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law, stated that if a
definitional section is added for emergency services dispatch,
it needs to be consistent and have language that ties it to the
service, rather than who provides that service.
MS. VOIGTLANDER directed attention to page 2, lines 16-22, [text
provided previously], and said that she supports having a
definition that "cross-references whatever definition is adopted
for Title 29."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked Ms. Voigtlander to look at the bill again
when "the next committee substitute of this bill comes out," to
ensure that it addresses those issues.
Number 2283
JAMES R. JACKSON JR., Attorney at Law, General Communications
Incorporated (GCI), stated that GCI supports a bill that can
help with the provision of E-911 service. He noted, however,
that there are issues in [Version Z] that need to be addressed.
First, he emphasized that it's important that the bill ensure
equal charges between wireless and wireline phones. The current
proposed language, he noted, says that the municipality "may"
impose a charge. He explained that since the language is
permissive, a municipality could choose to charge only wireline,
and not wireless, or vice versa. He suggested that language be
added to require that a municipality that elects to impose a
charge must impose the same charge on both wireless and wireline
phones. In response to a question from Chair Weyhrauch, he
offered his belief that that language could be added to Section
4.
Number 2350
MR. RUDIG responded that it would be the purview of the
committee to make that decision. He added, "We may want to stay
back to local control and lobby that at the municipality level
when they make the decision to impose a surcharge on both."
MR. JACKSON, returning to his testimony, stated, "We are,
frankly, quite bothered by the fact that there is no cap
whatsoever on the charge, at this point."
TAPE 04-74, SIDE B
Number 2368
MR. JACKSON mentioned the possibility that some jurisdictions
may try to impose charges of over $6 per line. He surmised that
that's what would be needed in Kodiak and perhaps Kenai to
recover all the costs, "even if today they don't think they
would go that high." He indicated that charges that go that
high would create a substantial issue in imposing "this level of
cost on telephone service." He posed: "I guess we have to, to
some extent, question the underlying premise that this is a
charge which is appropriate to collect entirely from telephone
users." He said it's not that the telephone system is imposing
these costs on society. In some ways, he explained, it's the
opposite of that; the telephone system enables a valuable public
safety service to be provided. He continued as follows:
Certainly, some of the costs are related to a per line
basis. And I think Mr. Gibbs, from Kenai, mentioned
that they pay 18 cents per access line to maintain the
database. So, certainly, there are some costs that
are still on a per access line basis, but at the same
time, in large part, this isn't just simply [a]
valuable safety service, which our society has deemed
desirable, that should be paid for through general tax
revenue.
So, we believe that a cap should be imposed. The
amount of money that can be collected from
approximately ... 600,000 wireline and wireless
telephones across the state -- you really start
talking about normal sums of money, if you're talking
about charges that start being [$3-$5]. We have, in
the past, supported the versions of the bill that have
had caps of $1.
As to the cap, we do think it's a good idea to have a
limit on the number of charges that apply to a user
that has more than 100 access lines, such as exists
... under present law. It would be, for instance,
hospitals and that type [of] thing that was mentioned
previously.
MR. JACKSON, regarding the previous question regarding whether
or not telephone [companies] distinguish between residential and
business users, stated, "It's certain that we do try to."
People who run businesses from home should be paying a business
rate.
Number 2253
MR. RUDIG mentioned the "magic number" and trying to figure out
what it is. He indicated that the emergency dispatch service
surcharge system and related costs could change from year to
year and the legislature should revisit the issue each year.
Number 2210
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM stated that one of the problems to rectify
through the bill is that the control is not at the municipal
level, because that makes it difficult for municipalities to
function.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked Mr. Jackson to "provide language" to the
committee.
Number 2142
JOHN FULLENWIDER, Fire Chief, Municipality of Anchorage, stated
that when people in Anchorage call 911, they expect that the
call will be answered and the services they need will be
provided right away. He stated, "This bill goes a long ways in
allowing us to do just that. In its current form, it will allow
local government to place the expense of operation and
maintenance squarely where it belongs, and that is, of course,
on the user." He said Representative Holm and Mr. Rudig have
done an excellent job with HB 461.
MR. FULLENWIDER noted that there still is an issue regarding the
PBX system. He added, "However, I believe that yesterday that
was covered, using the capitol as an example." He noted another
issue in regard to telephone companies and adding surcharges to
the bill. He said, "No doubt they receive a little heat
concerning these charges, but this bill, by allowing local
government to set the surcharge, should alleviate some of that
concern." Mr. Fullenwider encouraged the committee to move [HB
461] out of committee.
Number 2083
MARK MEW, President, Alaska Chapter, National Emergency Number
Association (NENA), regarding a previously stated concern of Mr.
Gibbs over whether or not 911 surcharge money could be used for
a CAD [computer aided dispatch] system, suggested looking at the
definition of the 911 system in existing statute. He said
permissible costs are listed there. He continued as follows:
We changed that in the statute - I'm going to say it
was in '99 or 2000, at the same time we added the
wireless surcharge for the first time - and expanded
what was in the definition of a 911 system,
specifically to cover CAD systems. At that point in
time, we weren't conceiving of separate dispatch and
911 centers, necessarily, but that was our thought at
the time, and it may be that that definition is
already there and in place to allow for those
expenses.
MR. MEW said he's heard a lot of discussion during the previous
testimony regarding whether billing should be based upon a phone
bill, an address, the telephone itself, or the local exchange
access line. He said he thinks there is some confusion about
definitions, and he suggested that "we" may be trying to solve a
nonexistent problem. He noted that NENA, on the national level,
has set standards. He revealed that an access line is not the
same as "a telephone set at the end." He explained, "You can
have a few access lines and a lot of sets." He continued as
follows:
The national standards are to base your billing on
access lines for the purpose of landline - wireline,
and on telephone numbers, for [the] purpose of
wireless. And I think we're not the first ones to
have this debate, and I think I'd encourage you to
consider the national standards; they're well thought
out, well published, and everyone understands them
around the country.
Number 1936
When NENA started working on legislation about a year
ago, we held our first meetings with the House in
October, before the session started - that was with a
different committee. But over the course of the last
few months, NENA has identified nine items that we
believe need addressing in our statutes. We filed our
version of the bill - that was [HB] 499 - and later
tried to get [HB] 499 and [HB] 461 merged. I commend
everybody's work on this. A lot of things have
happened in the last 24 hours; a lot of concerns we
had yesterday have been addressed, and I do hope the
bill moves in some form today.
I would like to point out, though, that of the nine
things that NENA has tried to accomplish, this bill
takes up three of them head on and deals with them.
The other ... five ... this bill doesn't conceive of
at all, and it seems to be missing around the edges on
the local exchange access line issue. I think the
state needs to deal with the additional issues. I
don't know if we'll get it done in the Senate, or if
we'll have to do it next year, but remaining to be
accomplished [is] dealing with the issue of phase two
cost recovery. That's mostly, I think, going to be an
industry issue, and if we don't deal with it, I think
there'll be quite a bit of friction and a few battles
in the future.
Number 1900
MR. MEW mentioned "prepaid wireless." He noted that he had
heard today that wireless resellers is being added to the
language of Version Z. He said he doesn't know if that would
cover prepaid wireless, or not. He added that it seems it
would, but he doesn't know if there is a collection mechanism
there. He said the issue of statewide point of contact has not
been addressed. If it is not addressed, the state will not be
eligible for significant federal funding, which will be
available soon. He indicated that the issue of unincorporated
boroughs has been addressed.
MR. MEW said the last item he would address is the private
switch ALI. He continued as follows:
Mr. Fullenwider ... used the capitol example. I think
the situation is worse than that. I've been told - I
can't confirm it - that you could work on the North
Slope, call 911, pass out, and the Anchorage Police
Department would get the call and ... would send first
responders to Alyeska [Pipeline Service Company's]
offices ... in Anchorage. What we would like is the
ability of local jurisdictions to be able to enact
legislation, so that we can correct those issues.
Right now, the situation is you could spend all the
money you wanted on building a functioning 911 system,
and other people could buy services that, essentially,
would negate what you've done.
MR. MEW said the aforementioned issues are ones that he hopes
[the legislature] will address in the future, and he said he
hopes that "the bill moves forward in some form today."
Number 1845
ALLEN STOREY, Lieutenant, Central Office, Division of Alaska
State Troopers, Department of Public Safety (DPS), expressed
excitement about the provisions of Section 1, on page 2, [lines
16-20], because the addition of that language will provide
"protection to the state that ... will be enjoyed by
municipalities." He indicated that these are functions that the
state already performs. In response to a question from
Representative Holm, he confirmed that the bill, in its current
form, would have a zero fiscal note.
Number 1806
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that public testimony was closed. He
mentioned a letter of intent.
Number 1794
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to the second line in the letter
of intent and asked, "Are we talking about [the] Division of
Homeland Security, within the Department of Military and
Veterans' Affairs?"
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH suggested that "the Division of Homeland
Security" could be left out, in order to keep the language
generic.
MR. RUDIG said that would be fine.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that "we simply say, 'It is
the intent of the legislature that the Coordinator be
established to coordinate'."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON added, "to coordinate and facilitate".
Number 1682
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH clarified that the amendment to the letter of
intent would read as follows:
It is the intent of the legislature that a state 911
Coordinator be established to coordinate.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection to the
amendment to the letter of intent. There being none, it was so
ordered.
Number 1660
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH removed his previously stated objection to
Version Z.
Number 1649
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to report CSHB 461, Version 23-
LS1633\Z, Cook, 4/28/04, as amended, out of committee, with
individual recommendations, attached fiscal note, and the
[amended] letter of intent. There being no objection, CSHB
461(STA) was reported out of the House State Affairs Standing
Committee.
HB 536-PFUND APPLICATION DEADLINES FOR MILITARY
Number 1628
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the next order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 536, "An Act relating to applications for
permanent fund dividends by certain individuals serving in the
armed forces; and providing for an effective date."
[Before the committee was CSHB 536(MLV).]
Number 1588
JON BITTNER, Staff to Representative Cheryll Heinze, Alaska
State Legislature, presented HB 536 on behalf of Representative
Heinze, sponsor. He stated that HB 536 was drafted in response
to several calls received by Representative Heinze from those in
the armed services serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, who were
either shipping out or oversees in a war zone during the
application period for the Alaska permanent fund divided (PFD).
The proposed legislation would allow an extension of the
application period for members of the armed services who receive
"hostile fire imminent danger pay." The bill would allow those
people 90 days, after getting out of that situation where
communications are inaccessible, to apply. If passed, the bill
would take effect 90 days after passage and would be retroactive
to 2003.
Number 1525
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH questioned the retroactivity date.
MR. BITTNER said the sponsor wants the bill to apply
specifically to members of the armed services who "are serving
in the last Iraqi war and in Afghanistan." In response to a
question from Representative Lynn, he said the bill would still
apply in the future.
Number 1476
REPRESENTATIVE CHERYLL HEINZE, Alaska State Legislature, as
sponsor of HB 536, explained that the first group of marines to
Baghdad did not receive their PFDs. She offered an example.
Number 1431
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH moved to adopt Amendment 1, [to add a] Section
4, which would provide that "this Act sunsets on December 31,
2004".
Number 1427
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected. He stated, "This is going to
go into permanent law and, unfortunately, ... countries,
including this country, seem to find themselves in harm's way
from time to time - not just this year." He said young people
have no choice about going [to war] and should "receive the
protection of this law."
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN concurred with Representative Gruenberg.
Number 1383
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON expressed concern regarding allowing
people to apply for PFDs retroactively and said he thinks the
Permanent Fund Dividend Division should be consulted.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated a point of order; he suggested
Representative Seaton's concerns were not expressly to the point
of the amendment.
Number 1341
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew [his objection to Amendment
1].
Number 1304
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Representative Heinze if she
supports Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE indicated that she can see both sides, and
suggested that Ms. Barton, Permanent Fund Dividend Division,
could address the question.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH explained that he had proposed Amendment 1 to
correlate with the previously stated intent of the bill to cover
those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE reiterated that the language could go
either way. She stated that she believes in the men and women
who fight [for the United States], and [without Amendment 1],
the bill would cover those serving in future wars.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that this is an important issue.
He explained, "Because if you're only going to do it for two
years, this should go in a temporary Act."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered his understanding that the sponsor
had indicated that "they've cleared this situation up so it
won't be happening in the future."
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE said there is hope that it won't happen
again, but it could. She noted that Ms. Barton had talked about
spending some money to get the message to these folks that "this
is out there."
Number 1212
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he feels strongly about this
issue. He explained, "I'm not a great fan of expanding the
permanent fund [dividend] to everybody, but these are people who
need it."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked Representative Heinze if "individuals in
this situation" couldn't get power of attorney.
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE answered that they could.
Number 1171
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered his understanding that it is
possible to apply for a PFD online. He asked if part of the
problem that Representative Heinze is addressing had to do with
delayed mail.
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE responded, "That is exactly the first
thing that we looked at, is ... if this is online, why was this
young marine not able [to get his PFD]." That marine had access
to nothing, not even a place to sleep.
Number 1118
SHARON BARTON, Director, Central Office, Permanent Fund Dividend
Division, Department of Revenue, in response to the issue of
whether or not to have a sunset clause, said it would appear
that [the United States] is involved in "short-term events" with
the military, but it would be a policy decision for the
committee to make.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he has been in war, and he
emphasized that those in war do not know where they will be at
any given time. He opined that [the legislature] should be
going out of its way to help [those in the service].
Number 1060
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Holm, Seaton, and
Weyhrauch voted in favor of Amendment 1. Representatives
Gruenberg, and Lynn voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 1
was adopted by a vote of 3-2.
Number 1014
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM moved to report CSHB 536(MLV), as amended,
out of committee, [with individual recommendations and the
attached fiscal notes].
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked if there could be reconsideration of
the previously recorded roll call vote.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said the current motion before the
committee would first have to be withdrawn.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked Representative Holm what he would like to
do.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM said he was maintaining his motion.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection to moving CSHB
536(MLV), as amended, out of committee, [with individual
recommendations and the attached fiscal notes]. There being
none, CSHB 536(STA) was reported out of the House State Affairs
Standing Committee.
HB 557-LOBBYIST PROHIBITIONS
Number 0930
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the next order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 557, "An Act regarding lobbyist prohibitions."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH stated, "We have CS for HB 557, Version U. This
is a work draft." [No motion was made at this time to adopt the
committee substitute (CS) for HB 557, Version 23-LS1921\U,
Craver, 4/26/04, as a work draft].
Number 0920
REPRESENTATIVE CHERYLL HEINZE, Alaska State Legislature, as
sponsor of HB 557, stated that the bill would protect people,
legislators, and legislative employees from threats and or
bullying, in relation to their testimony before a committee.
She said 99 percent of lobbyists are sophisticated people;
people who are welcome into her office and whose perspective and
knowledge she values. She indicated that it is only a few
lobbyists who push the envelope on their code of ethics.
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE said she had looked into the lobbyists'
code of ethics and found "it was virtually nonexistent." She
noted that in working with [the Alaska Public Offices Commission
(APOC)], she has diligently tried to keep the language of the
bill specific and "very narrow." She emphasized that she views
lobbyists as a valuable part of the [legislative] process. She
also emphasized that "it is the process that we must
collectively protect." Representative Heinze, [in regard to
bullying], stated that intimidation and fear of retribution
works. She said she strongly believes that there should be
freedom of speech without retribution; legislators should be
able to introduce bills and follow them through, without fear of
retribution. Furthermore, she said that any person who
testifies before a committee or via teleconference should be
allowed to do so, without fear of retribution. She stated,
"Just as there is sanctity in the court room, there must be
sanctity in the legislative process." She said it is up to
legislators [to protect that sanctity]. She said the
legislative code of ethics was used as a guide, as well as "some
language of some of the other states."
Number 0700
HAROLD HEINZE, testifying on behalf of himself, told the
committee that he is a 30-year resident of Alaska. He revealed
that he has testified before municipal assemblies, the
legislature, and the U.S. Congress. He mentioned an Associated
Press (AP) article carried by the Anchorage Daily News,
regarding [HB 557]. He said he was surprised not to see
reflected in that article, any outrage by legislators. He said
it seems to him that this issue goes far beyond free speech. He
stated, "When I read this article, I sort of felt I was
[hearing] a judge in a courtroom saying, 'Well, it was only a
little bit of jury tampering - nothing really to worry about.'"
He indicated that it's hard enough for most folks to testify,
without having any feeling that something could happen to them
for expressing their thoughts to the legislature. He stated
that he's not certain that the bill goes far enough, in terms of
penalties. He rated this issue on par with the seriousness of
jury tampering in a courtroom. He concluded, "I think that's
the way you should look at the process here and how it would
impact the people that are before you." He thanked the
committee for the opportunity to present his views openly.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said some legislators don't call the press to
comment, so, the fact that there was no outrage from legislators
is not that surprising. He also noted that no one [from the
press] called him. Notwithstanding that, he said, "I think we
share your concern."
Number 0460
TAMMY KEMPTON, Regulation of Lobbying, Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC), Department of Administration, stated that,
currently, the commission does not have a position on HB 557,
and it has submitted a zero fiscal note. She said there may be
a fiscal impact on the commission as a result of "this amendment
to the lobbying law"; however, it would be impossible at this
point to quantify what that impact might be. She explained that
if there are dozens of complaints filed, there will be a strong
fiscal impact.
MS. KEMPTON continued, by reading from her written testimony
[included in the committee packet], as follows:
The fiscal note we submitted was based on the original
version of HB 557, not on the committee substitute.
The original version did not include civil penalties
for violations of Section 121 and current law does not
provide civil penalties for such violations. The only
penalties currently are criminal. Thus, if a
violation did occur, the commission would be required
to conduct a full investigation, hold a hearing, make
a determination, and then, if a violation was found,
report the violation to the Department of Law, who
then would make a determination whether or not to
proceed. This is a time-consuming and expensive
process.
The committee substitute gives the commission
authority to impose civil penalties against a lobbyist
who violates any of the provisions of AS 24.45.121 and
this is a very positive change. The commission will
be able to conduct an investigation and, if a
violation is found, they would suspend the violator's
lobbyist registration and/or impose a fine of not more
than $5,000. The ability to impose a civil penalty
will enable the commission to stop the behavior more
quickly and with less cost than imposing a criminal
penalty. And the criminal penalties are still
available for the most egregious cases.
We do, however, have a concern with this bill, and
that is that it's not going to accomplish its intent.
Because of the change to the lobbying statute last
year, an employee lobbyist is not required to register
until he or she has lobbied for 40 hours in a 30-day
period. So, an employee lobbying for his or her
employer, who engages in this type of behavior, or
thinks they might, will simply not register. And the
commission has no authority over employee lobbyists
who have not yet triggered the requirement to
register. This legislation will prevent a
professional lobbyist from engaging in such behavior.
Presently, we have 60 professional lobbyists and 66
employee lobbyists [registered]. Last year at this
time ... we had 72 professional lobbyists and 114
employee lobbyists.
MS. KEMPTON offered to answer questions from the committee.
Number 0204
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to page 3, [beginning
on] line 8 [of Version U], which read as follows:
(i) will take or withhold or will cause
another person to take or withhold a legislative,
administrative, or political action, including support
for or opposition to a bill, employment, nominations,
or appointments; in this sub-subparagraph, "political
action" has the meaning given in AS 24.60.990; or
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, in regard to this language, asked if not
supporting a person in an election would be a criminal offense.
MS. KEMPTON said she has not read Version U and is not familiar
with the term "political action" and how it is defined, because
the definition is in the legislative ethics code, not the
lobbyists' code.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH stated for the record that the committee is
"speaking to" Version U.
Number 0085
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that the definition is [within] AS
24.60.990, and read as follows:
(13) "political action" means conduct in which
public officials, including legislators or legislative
employees, use their official position or political
contacts to exercise influence on state and local
government employees or entities; it includes but is
not limited to endorsing and pledging support or
actively supporting a legislative matter, a nominee,
or a candidate for public office;
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said, "I wonder how you would hold
somebody accountable for that as a lobbyist, under this ...
rule."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said political action is what takes place
in the legislature.
TAPE 04-75, SIDE A
Number 0001
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON questioned again whether political support
would be a violation.
Number 0039
MS. KEMPTON responded, "Lobbyists aren't allowed to support
candidates, in terms of giving political contributions, and
they're not allowed to fundraise or serve on their campaign.
And they can only give contribution to those candidates ... in
the district in which they're eligible to vote."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH noted that what [lobbyists] can do is talk to
political action committees, groups, or individuals and
encourage support and contributions to one candidate over
another.
Number 0094
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE remarked that she has tried to keep the
bill narrow, so that it only applies to "testimony in a
committee."
Number 0132
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said, "If there was an implication on
record, that it might involve some political action, then they
would be in violation."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said, "You could imply a political threat to
oppose one bill, in exchange for a vote for another, and that
happens a lot."
Number 0182
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL responded, "Your example is good, and
especially if they are substantive issues that have political
ramifications that would be legitimate for a lobbyist to comment
on."
Number 0194
JON BITTNER, Staff to Representative Cheryll Heinze, Alaska
State Legislature, sponsor, clarified that the provisions of the
bill would only kick in if a threat was used to influence the
way someone testifies or whether or not he/she testifies.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL indicated that "hidden in the language"
is the problem that would exist in substantiating such a threat.
He indicated that APOC would have to be involved and it may be
one person's word against the other's.
MR. BITTNER offered his understanding that a civil hearing would
be held. He said the burden of proof would not be as heavy as
it is in criminal law, although it would still be fairly
substantial.
Number 0331
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked [about a situation in which] the
bullying or intimidation wasn't "solely in the mind of the
person that's being intimidated or bullied."
MR. BITTNER said that although he agrees with Representative
Seaton, the sponsor felt that "by tying it to the way you
testify before a committee ... would make it a little more clear
- a little more substantial." He added, "You can be bullied,
but it would be difficult to think you were being bullied to
change your testimony, without some sort of proof."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he doesn't see the narrowness of
"this." He directed attention to [page 3], lines 14-16, which
read as follows:
(B) bully or intimidate with the intent of
influencing a legislator, legislative employee, or
member of the public in regard to taking a position on
an issue, voting, testifying, or lobbying.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said, "This is not narrow on testimony to
a committee. I mean, this is any time that they were going to
... talk to a legislator, and you don't want them to say
something on that. And if they felt intimidated, that would be
a charge to this ethics violation, as I see it." He suggested
asking for APOC's opinion.
Number 0452
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked how he would defend himself if he were
a lobbyist who was accused.
Number 0482
PAMELA LaBOLLE, President, Alaska State Chamber of Commerce
(ASCC), indicated that the language is so broad that if a
lobbyist were to state his/her disagreement with something, for
example, he/she may be open to civil fine and lose the ability
to lobby.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked, "Have you ever appeared before a
committee and have a legislator do a variety of bullying you?"
MS. LaBOLLE answered yes. She noted that in the aforementioned
article, she did say that legislators have a greater ability to
bully lobbyists than lobbyists do legislators.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON indicated that the aforementioned language
on page 3, lines 14-16, would include lobbyists arguing with
lobbyists.
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE said there are bullies in school yards,
but they are not allowed to continue their bullying. She
remarked that some of those bullies grow up to bully as adults.
She said she wants "those sideboards," and indicated that she
wants committee input and also to see the bill moved out of
committee.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH stated that he had made a commitment to Ms.
LaBolle to hear HB 557 and to "ask if there was a motion to move
this bill today." He told Representative Heinze that it was her
call whether she wanted him to ask for a motion, or to hold the
bill for further study.
Number 0754
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated that he is not prepared to vote to
move the bill today. He said he appreciates what Representative
Heinze is trying to do; however, he stated that if a person has
a serious disagreement with somebody, one person may think they
are being intimidated. He said he doesn't know "how we could
get down to proving that, even when it's in testimony before a
committee." He revealed that he has had some heated exchanges
with people during testimony, because "we got caught in the
moment of a discussion." He admitted he has even gotten angry
with people who have not liked his position.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked Representative Heinze again whether or not
she wanted the committee to make a motion to move the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE clarified that the bill is not about "he
said, she said"; there has to be a "mountain of evidence." She
credited APOC as being smart enough to know that. She expressed
her willingness to work with each member of the committee to
tighten up the language of the bill as it moved to the House
floor.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH reiterated his question to Representative
Heinze, and asked if there was a motion to move HB 557.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL reiterated his recommendation to hold the
bill, because the issue is a huge one. He indicated that the
bill needed to be narrowed down.
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE said, "I can do that."
Number 0900
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH, in response to Representative Coghill,
clarified that his intention had been to take action on the
bill, but he wants to leave that decision up to the sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE reiterated her idea of working with each
of the committee members before the bill "hits the [House]
floor."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said, "That sounds like committee work."
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said he thinks the committee is "nibbling
around the edge of a serious issue," and he has problems with
the way the bill is currently written.
Number 0068
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH indicated his intention to hear HB 557 again.
[HB 557 was heard and held.]
HB 460-ALLOWABLE ABSENCES AND PFDS
Number 0985
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the next order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 460, "An Act relating to absences to provide care
for certain relatives for purposes of permanent fund dividend
eligibility; and providing for an effective date."
[From this point forward, the committee substitute (CS) for HB
460, Version 23-LS1700\D, Cook, 4/1/04, was treated as adopted
and before the committee as a work draft.]
Number 0999
AURORA HAUKE, Staff to Representative Beth Kerttula, Alaska
State Legislature, testifying on behalf of Representative
Kerttula, sponsor, explained that the intent of the original
bill was to allow people to provide care for critically ill or
injured family members, no matter where that family member
became ill. She indicated that when the sponsor discussed the
bill with the Permanent Fund Dividend Division, it was pointed
out that the language may imply that [the individual started out
being ill inside of the state and then had to go outside of the
state for care].
MS. HAUKE directed attention to page 3, beginning on line 9,
which read as follows:
(d) For purposes of (a)(6) and (7) [(a)(7)] of
this section, "family member" means a person who is
(1) legally related to the individual
through marriage or guardianship; or
(2) the individual's sibling, parent,
grandparent, son, daughter, grandson, granddaughter,
uncle, aunt, niece, nephew, or first cousin.
Number 1115
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked, "So, the intent of this is if there
is an Alaskan who has someone who's a non-Alaskan who's injured,
they can leave for how long and still continue to collect
dividends?"
MS. HAUKE offered her understanding that the length of time
would be the same as for any other allowable absence. She
guessed five years.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said, "So, it's under the 10-year time
frame, so it starts in 2008, if that's the cutoff that you're
talking about." In response to a question from Representative
Gruenberg, he clarified that the 10-year window "starts in
2008," but is not "from 2008."
Number 1202
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if "critical life-threatening" is
defined in statute.
MS. HAUKE said she doesn't know.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he has a problem with the
broadness of the language regarding the definition of a family
member.
MS. HAUKE noted that the sponsor chose to leave the language as
it currently is in statute.
Number 1289
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that he doesn't have a problem
with the language, "[PARENT, SPOUSE, SIBLING, CHILD, OR
STEPCHILD]".
Number 1303
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said he has an amendment that would change the
sunset to "January 1, 2006", so that the legislature has the
opportunity to "come back and look at it."
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM stated that he thinks the language is broad.
He questioned the inclusion of "first cousin".
Number 1355
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to a request by Chair
Weyhrauch, moved [to adopt the committee substitute (CS) for HB
460, Version 23-LS1700, Cook, 4/1/04, as work draft].
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH objected.
Number 1385
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 1, as follows:
On page 2, lines 10-11:
Delete "family member"
Retain "[PARENT, SPOUSE, SIBLING, CHILD, OR
STEPCHILD]"
On page 3, lines 8-14:
Delete Section 2 of the bill
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH objected to Amendment 1.
Number 1394
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked if a grandparent is considered a
parent. He also asked, "And what about an aunt or an uncle?"
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG answered, "No, it's not." He clarified
that "the terms are used differently here."
Number 1406
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON recalled a floor debate last year
regarding this issue. He said he thinks the committee is
getting into something that is not proposed in the bill. He
turned attention to [page 2], line 11, which read, "critical
life-threatening illness or injury", and he said he is not
certain whether "critical life-threatening" applies to "injury".
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG clarified that "critical life-
threatening" would modify both "illness" or "injury".
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said he would like to add "grandparent".
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would consider that a friendly
amendment [to Amendment 1].
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH clarified that the amendment to Amendment 1
would add "grandparent" to the list [on page 2, lines 10-11,
text previously provided].
Number 1498
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if the committee realizes the
following:
We are no longer talking about an Alaskan who was
injured; we are talking about someone who is injured
who is Outside, and we have an Alaskan who goes out to
care for them. Now, if ... it's a [critical] life-
threatening illness, and they become a dependent on
that person, then, under other portions, that person
may ... - having never been here - be eligible for a
[permanent fund dividend (PFD)], because they're a
dependent of the Alaskan who's out on allowable
absence. If ... we create this as an ... extended
allowable absence, anyone who's a dependent upon that
person can also receive a permanent fund dividend
check.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG responded that that's a good point and
may be a problem in current law.
Number 1533
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said he has kids Outside, but they don't
receive a permanent fund.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH clarified that Representative Seaton had pointed
out that "we're opening it up for everybody." He said, for
example, "Why don't we just give permanent fund dividends to
every relation to the member who lives in Alaska?"
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said he doesn't think the amendment does
that.
Number 1553
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified:
The way this works, if you look at the statutes as
what's allowed: If you're a dependent, such as the
military, if you have children that are dependent on
somebody that's on active duty that rotated up here,
... was here, and leaves, all of those dependents are
accompanying a person ... that's got an allowable
absence. And so, they are under the accompanying
allowable absence person - the person on active duty.
And my question here is that we're going to have the
same thing where we're going to have somebody with an
allowable absence, and a dependent on that allowable
absence, and then qualify for the PFD.
[HB 460 was heard and held.]
Number 1605
The meeting was recessed at 10:09 a.m. to a call of the chair.
TAPE 04-76, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH called the meeting back to order at 2:08 p.m.
Present at the call back to order were Representatives Holm,
Seaton, Lynn, Gruenberg, and Weyhrauch.
SJR 25-FLOODING AND EROSION CONTROL ASSISTANCE
[Contains discussion of HB 327.]
Number 1040
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the next order of business was
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 25, Recommending that certain
federal funding restrictions be eased so that more villages in
Alaska would qualify for assistance relating to flooding and
erosion.
Number 0059
HAVEN HARRIS, Staff to Senator Donny Olson, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Senator Olson, sponsor, read the
sponsor statement, as follows:
Senate Joint Resolution 25 is a resolution requesting
the Army Corp of Engineers ease their cost benefit
analysis for projects in rural Alaska.
Senator Olson has proposed this resolution in response
to many concerns voiced by my constituents with
regards to the erosion and flooding problems that
plague Western Alaska. Currently, many of the
villages in Western Alaska are not receiving the
assistance needed for the protection of life and
property.
On November 8, 2003, a winter storm hit western
Alaska. This storm caused considerable damage to
Unalakleet, Shishmaref, and some of Nome's surrounding
areas. While the governor has declared a state of
disaster because of this storm, the continued
effect[s] of erosion on the villages of Alaska are not
going to be solved by emergency disaster declarations.
A more comprehensive, coordinated effort is required
by the Army Corps of Engineers and other federal and
state agencies.
Senator Olson and our office respectfully urge your
support for this resolution to focus attention on this
serious problem.
MR. HARRIS noted that although the sponsor statement talks about
erosion in Western Alaska, it is a serious problem in other
parts of the state, as well; therefore, the "BE IT RESOLVED"
section of the resolution [on page 2, lines 14-18] includes all
communities in the state.
Number 0194
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM, for the record, characterized HB 327 as a
companion bill to SJR 25, because it also deals with cost
benefits analyses that [are not economically feasible]. He
expressed his appreciation for SJR 25 and said he hopes it can
be supported.
Number 0265
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, [in regard to the section of the bill
addressing sending "COPIES" of the resolution, on page 2, lines
19-26], suggested that the copies be sent by electronic
transmission to avoid possible problems of sending them by mail.
Number 0306
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to report SJR 25 out of committee
with individual recommendations [and the accompanying fiscal
notes]. There being no objection, SJR 25 was reported out of
the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
SB 227-MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS
Number 0335
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the last order of business was CS
FOR SENATE BILL NO. 227(STA) am, "An Act relating to municipal
runoff elections and to municipal initiative and referendum
elections."
[Before the committee was CSSB 227(STA)am.]
Number 0353
SENATOR GARY STEVENS, Alaska State Legislature, as sponsor of SB
227, told the committee that the bill basically has two separate
parts. He said he would first speak to the last half, which is
Sections 4, 5, and 6. He explained that he introduced the bill,
at the request of local governments, in order to avoid costly
initiative elections and referendums.
SENATOR GARY STEVENS noted that current law forces
municipalities to hold initiatives and referendums within 75
days. Normally, municipalities hold their annual elections in
October; often, having a special election would be costly, time
consuming, and a real burden on municipalities. He offered the
example of the Fairbanks Northstar Borough's having 46 petitions
filed in a four-month period. He reported that the result was
only one special election, but it could have been much worse.
He explained, "Each special election costs them about $35,000;
plus they need additional volunteers; plus there's the workload
on municipal employees."
SENATOR GARY STEVENS continued as follows:
The goal of this bill is to ... result in cost-savings
to the municipalities, if they chose to wait until the
next regular election. The key thing is, you realize,
this gives them the option; it doesn't force them. If
there's an issue that can wait, they can wait until
the next election.
SENATOR GARY STEVENS directed attention to the first part of the
bill, Sections 1, 2, and 3, deal specifically with Anchorage and
the requirement that the mayor have over 50 percent of the vote.
He concluded, "So those two were amended on the Senate floor,
and that's why you have this bill in front of you."
Number 0513
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM stated that [the content in] Sections 4, 5,
and 6 is essentially what was going to be put forth as a House
bill. He expressed appreciation for [SB 227].
Number 0621
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated his support of Sections 4, 5, and
6.
Number 0683
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked if this is the same bill that has
resulted in many e-mails being sent to his office regarding
local control.
SENATOR GARY STEVENS replied that he suspects it's the same
bill. He clarified, "The portion I introduced was [Sections] 4,
5, and 6; the portion introduced on the floor of the Senate by
Senator Ben Stevens amended it in Sections 1, 2, and 3, which
essentially has to do with the Anchorage ... mayoral election."
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said the "very hot" e-mails had to do with
the state telling a city what to do after the city had already
taken a vote on "how to do it." He stated concern regarding
"less than 50 percent for mayor"; however, he said it's a
municipal concern, rather than a state concern.
Number 0749
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH remarked that there seems to be a vague line
between local versus state [issues].
SENATOR GARY STEVENS stated that the principle of local control
is a valid one, and Sections 4, 5, and 6 would allow enormous
local control.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked, "What about the 40 percent for
mayor?"
SENATOR GARY STEVENS reiterated that was an amendment that was
made on the Senate floor; he voted for it and it passed. He
noted that both distinct issues of the bill fit under the title.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked for guidance regarding [the mayoral
issue].
SENATOR GARY STEVENS explained that the motion on the [Senate]
floor was to require the mayor of Anchorage to have ... over 50
percent of the votes.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said he agrees with that philosophically,
but he's not sure he agrees that the state ought to mandate
that.
Number 0928
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH stated that the committee would now address
Sections 1, 2, and 3.
Number 0935
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to an e-mail that he
received from David Ramseur [included in the committee packet],
expressing concern regarding the amendment by Senator Ben
Stevens and the [Voting Rights Act of 1965]. He asked if there
was a legal opinion contrary to what Mr. Ramseur stated, or if
he may assume that "there are going to be serious problems with
that."
DALE STRAUBE, Staff to Senator Ben Stevens, Alaska State
Legislature, answering questions on behalf of Senator Ben
Stevens, told Representative Gruenberg that this is the first
time he has heard of the issue.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said the real question is "whether it's
fair to minority voters." He said he thinks that's an issue
that's as important as anything else.
Number 1050
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, in response to a request by Chair
Weyhrauch, moved to adopt CSSB 227(STA)am, as a work draft.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM objected.
MR. STRAUBE said he doesn't see anything in the aforementioned
e-mail that gives any factual background or case law. He said
he doesn't understand how requiring "50 plus 1" violates the
Voting Rights Act [of 1965].
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG responded that it was never said that
the law is logical. He explained that what the federal Voting
Rights Act [of 1965] requires is "pre-clearance" by the justice
department, "with an eye to determining whether ... whatever
change it is may significantly affect the voting rights of a
minority population." He said Mr. Ramseur is making the point
that raising the requirement from 45 to 50 percent may
negatively effect minority voters.
MR. STRAUBE noted that prior to the change to 45 percent, the
requirement was 50 percent. Furthermore, he offered his
understanding that the charter amendment that dropped the
requirement to 45 percent had not been cleared by the justice
department prior to being enacted and "it was after the fact."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that it's not a question of what
it was before, but of what the change is. He offered an
example.
Number 1244
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt an amendment, which read
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Page 1, line 12 to Page 2, Line 6: delete all material
Renumber sections accordingly
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he wanted to make changes to the
amendment, to delete "12" and insert "4", and to delete "all
materials" and insert "Sections 1-3".
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH clarified that the amendment would be called
Amendment 1 and would include the changes. Amendment 1 read as
follows:
Page 1, line 4 to Page 2, Line 6: delete Sections 1-3
Renumber sections accordingly
Number 1288
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection to Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM objected.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered three reasons to support
Amendment 1: One, there's a significant problem with the U.S.
Voting Rights Act and the federal district court says such
changes require pre-clearance with the justice department; two,
as Representative Lynn said, the amendment [to SB 227] was done
at the state level, but it is a matter of local elections; and
three, "this was passed by a significant majority of Anchorage
voters and this legislature should give deference to that." He
added, "If we can do this to Anchorage, then every municipality
in the state is at risk."
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM maintained his objection.
Number 1359
SENATOR GARY STEVENS responded that the State of Alaska laws do
control elections throughout the state. He noted that
traditional American voting has always been 50 percent, plus
one; that appears in Robert's Rules of Order. He said he
doesn't see how requiring over half of the public to vote for a
candidate disenfranchises any element of the public. He spoke
for leaving this language in the bill. He said, "It is, I
think, perfectly within our right to establish those rules as
state legislature."
Number 1439
MR. STRAUBE said that Anchorage, as the largest community in the
state, has the financial means to hold runoff elections. He
said one of the arguments to drop the number to 45 percent to
avoid a runoff had to do with the cost of running the election.
He noted, "Well, most recently, the Anchorage assembly and the
mayor proposed to put on a ballot question that raised a tax, so
it's obviously well within the means of the Anchorage community
to afford to pay for the democratic process."
MR. STRAUBE noted that the aforementioned e-mail has today's
date marked on it and was not sent to the sponsor or to other
members of the committee. He said he doesn't want to hold up
the bill, but he thinks "you would want to get a legal comment
from the Department of Law, or at least something else a little
more specific, in writing, other than just an e-mail from Mr.
Ramseur."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that there is no policy that the
governor of the state be elected by a majority. He said it
looks like the operation of Section 3 of the bill would allow a
community with less than 100,000 residents to "opt out of this
by ordinance." He indicated that this constitutes serious equal
protection arguments here. He question why the municipality of
Anchorage should be "disallowed from opting out."
SENATOR GARY STEVENS stated his concern that if the bill fails
it would mean more cost to communities. He encouraged the
committee to pass the bill as it is.
Number 1635
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated that he thinks it's poor public
policy for the legislature to be overriding votes of local
communities. He noted that half of the representatives in the
House are representing the communities that "this specifically
deals with," but he is not one of them; therefore, he is willing
to "let them decide on the floor of the House."
Number 1660
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gruenberg voted in
favor of Amendment 1. Representatives Holm, Seaton, and
Weyhrauch voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 1 failed by a
vote of 1-3.
Number 1685
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt Amendment 2, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Page 1, line 8,
After the words "no candidate receives..."
Delete the word "over"
Page 1, line 14
Delete "over"
Insert "more than"
Page 2, line 3,
Delete the word "over"
Insert the words "more than"
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH objected.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that the term "over" is not
defined in statute.
SENATOR GARY STEVENS said he has no objection to Amendment 2.
MR. STRAUBE stated that he has no objection to Amendment 2.
Number 1730
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH removed his objection to Amendment 2. He asked
if there was any further objection. There being none, Amendment
2 was adopted.
Number 1758
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM moved to report CSSB 227(STA)am, as amended,
out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
Number 1770
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected.
Number 1780
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Seaton, Lynn, Holm,
and Weyhrauch voted in favor of moving CSSB 227(STA)am, as
amended, out of committee. Representative Gruenberg voted
against it. Therefore, HCS CSSB 227(STA) was reported out of
the House State Affairs Standing Committee by a vote of 4-1.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1811
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:41
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|