Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 106
04/14/2005 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Alaska Air National Guard - Brigadier General | |
| HB167 | |
| HB160 | |
| HB238 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | SB 141 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 238 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 167 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 160 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
April 14, 2005
8:08 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Paul Seaton, Chair
Representative Jim Elkins
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Jay Ramras
Representative Berta Gardner
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Carl Gatto, Vice Chair
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARING: ALASKA AIR NATIONAL GUARD - BRIGADIER
GENERAL COLONEL TONY A. HART - KULIS AIR NATIONAL GUARD BASE
HOUSE BILL NO. 167
"An Act relating to providing a death certificate for a deceased
veteran without cost."
- MOVED CSHB 167(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 160
"An Act limiting the use of money of the state and its political
subdivisions to affect an election."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 238
"An Act relating to contribution rates for employers and members
in the defined benefit plans of the teachers' retirement system
and the public employees' retirement system and to the ad-hoc
post-retirement pension adjustment in the teachers' retirement
system; requiring insurance plans provided to members of the
teachers' retirement system, the judicial retirement system, the
public employees' retirement system, and the former elected
public officials retirement system to provide a list of
preferred drugs; relating to defined contribution plans for
members of the teachers' retirement system and the public
employees' retirement system; and providing for an effective
date."
- HEARD AND HELD
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 141(FIN)
"An Act relating to the teachers' and public employees'
retirement systems and creating defined contribution and health
reimbursement plans for members of the teachers' retirement
system and the public employees' retirement system who are first
hired after July 1, 2005; relating to university retirement
programs; establishing the Alaska Retirement Management Board to
replace the Alaska State Pension Investment Board, the Alaska
Teachers' Retirement Board, and the Public Employees' Retirement
Board; adding appeals of the decisions of the administrator of
the teachers' and public employees' retirement systems to the
jurisdiction of the office of administrative hearings; providing
for nonvested members of the teachers' retirement system defined
benefit plans to transfer into the teachers' retirement system
defined contribution plan and for nonvested members of the
public employees' retirement system defined benefit plans to
transfer into the public employees' retirement system defined
contribution plan; providing for political subdivisions and
public organizations to request to participate in the public
employees' defined contribution retirement plan; and providing
for an effective date."
- PENDING REFERRAL
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 167
SHORT TITLE: DECEASED VETERAN DEATH CERTIFICATE/HONOR
SPONSOR(s): MILITARY & VETERANS' AFFAIRS
02/22/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/22/05 (H) MLV, STA
03/17/05 (H) MLV AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/17/05 (H) Moved CSHB 167(MLV) Out of Committee
03/17/05 (H) MINUTE(MLV)
03/18/05 (H) MLV RPT CS(MLV) 5DP
03/18/05 (H) DP: THOMAS, GRUENBERG, CISSNA, ELKINS,
LYNN
03/21/05 (H) FIN REFERRAL ADDED AFTER STA
04/12/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
04/12/05 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/14/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 160
SHORT TITLE: PUBLIC FUNDS & BALLOT PROPS/CANDIDATES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) STOLTZE
02/18/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/18/05 (H) CRA, STA
03/17/05 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
03/17/05 (H) Heard & Held
03/17/05 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
04/07/05 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
04/07/05 (H) Moved CSHB 160(CRA) Out of Committee
04/07/05 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
04/08/05 (H) CRA RPT CS(CRA) 2DP 3NR
04/08/05 (H) DP: NEUMAN, THOMAS;
04/08/05 (H) NR: SALMON, LEDOUX, OLSON
04/12/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
04/12/05 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/14/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 238
SHORT TITLE: PUBLIC EMPLOYEE/TEACHER RETIREMENT
SPONSOR(s): STATE AFFAIRS
03/30/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/30/05 (H) STA, FIN
03/31/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/31/05 (H) Heard & Held
03/31/05 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/02/05 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 106
04/02/05 (H) Heard & Held
04/02/05 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/05/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
04/05/05 (H) Heard & Held
04/05/05 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/07/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
04/07/05 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/09/05 (H) STA AT 9:30 AM CAPITOL 106
04/09/05 (H) Heard & Held
04/09/05 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/12/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
04/12/05 (H) Heard & Held
04/12/05 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/14/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
JOHN CRAMER, Director
Administrative Services Division
Department of Military & Veterans Affairs
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of Tony A. Hart,
Colonel, appointee as Brigadier General of the Alaska Air
National Guard, during the confirmation hearing for Colonel
Hart.
SARAH HOOK, Staff
to Representative Gruenberg
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on behalf of
Representative Gruenberg, member of the House Special Committee
on Military and Veterans' Affairs, sponsor of HB 167.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as the sponsor of HB 160.
BEN MULLIGAN, Staff
to Representative Bill Stoltze
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 160 on
behalf of Representative Bill Stoltze, sponsor.
CAROL COMEAU, Superintendent
Anchorage School District
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 160.
RON LONG
No address provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 160.
TOM BOEDEKER, City Manager
City of Soldotna
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns with the scope of HB
160.
BROOKE MILES, Executive Director
Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
160.
ANNE MARIE HOLEN, Staff
City Manager's Office
City of Homer
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 160.
KATHY WASSERMAN, Policy & Program Coordinator
Alaska Municipal League (AML)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 160.
KATHERINE SHOWS, Staff
to Representative Paul Seaton
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Reviewed aspects of HB 238 on behalf of
Representative Seaton, Chair of the House State Affairs Standing
Committee, sponsor.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:08:52 AM. Representatives Lynn,
Ramras, Gardner, Gruenberg, and Seaton were present at the call
to order. Representative Elkins arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
^CONFIRMATION HEARING(S)
^Alaska Air National Guard - Brigadier General
CHAIR SEATON announced that the committee would consider the
confirmation of the appointment of Colonel Tony A. Hart as
Brigadier General of the Alaska Air National Guard.
8:09:49 AM
8:12:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN added that the Air War College is a
prestigious institution for senior officers, which few officers
attend. He offered his understanding that a person has to be a
full colonel to attend. He said it's almost mandatory for an
officer to attend Air War College in order to become a general.
He added, "It's the military Harvard."
8:13:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG listed some additional qualifications
of Colonel Hart. He noted that the colonel had testified via
teleconference during a House Special Committee on Military and
Veterans' Affairs meeting, and he asked that "the record in that
committee be incorporated by reference in today's hearing."
8:15:04 AM
CHAIR SEATON agreed. He read what he understood to be the
mission statement of the Air War College for the record. He
said Colonel Hart visited with him and he was impressed by his
presentation.
8:15:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved [to advance the confirmation] of
Colonel Tony A. Hart [to the joint session of the House and
Senate]. There being no objection, the nomination of Colonel
Tony A. Hart to the position of Brigadier General, Alaska Air
National Guard, was advanced.
HB 167-DEATH CERTIFICATE FOR DECEASED VETERAN
8:16:19 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the next order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 167, "An Act relating to providing a death certificate
for a deceased veteran without cost."
8:17:15 AM
CHAIR SEATON noted that Representatives Lynn and Gruenberg serve
on the House Special Committee on Military and Veterans'
Affairs, sponsor of the bill.
8:17:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, speaking as a member of the House
Special Committee on Military and Veterans' Affairs, sponsor of
HB 167, noted that there was a committee substitute in the
committee packet.
8:18:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to adopt the committee substitute (CS)
for HB 167, Version 24-LS0605\Y, Bullock, 4/11/05, as a work
draft. There being no objection, Version Y was before the
committee.
8:18:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that the House Special
Committee on Military and Veterans' Affairs combined the former
HB 166 into HB 167; the first half of the bill is the former HB
167 and the second half is the former HB 166. [Section 1] would
amend AS 18.50.320 to add a new [paragraph (7)]. He said it is
modeled on an Arizona statute: ARS 39.122.A. Representative
Gruenberg directed attention to the death certificate issued in
Arizona for Seymour Epstein [included in the committee packet].
He noted that the late Mr. Epstein was his uncle-in-law. He
cited paragraph (7), which read as follows:
(7) upon request and without cost to the individual
making the request, the bureau shall issue a certified
copy of the death certificate of a veteran to the
surviving spouse, next of kin, or other relative of
the deceased veteran for the purpose of obtaining
veterans' benefits, social security benefits, and
other government benefits; in this paragraph,
"veteran" has the meaning given in AS 26.10.080.
8:20:27 AM
CHAIR SEATON pointed out that the committee packet includes a
fiscal note, but it is for the original bill version, not for
Version Y.
The committee took an at-ease from 8:21:11 AM to 8:21:33 AM.
8:21:34 AM
SARAH HOOK, Staff to Representative Gruenberg, Alaska State
Legislature, said there is someone available to address
questions regarding the fiscal note.
8:21:53 AM
CHAIR SEATON clarified that he wants to ensure a fiscal note for
Version Y will be available for the record.
8:22:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to Section 2 of the
bill, which he said is modeled on federal law: 38 U.S.C.
Section 112. It would allow the adjutant general of the
Department of Military and Veterans' Affairs, upon the request
of the governor, to issue certificates expressing the state's
recognition of the veteran's service. The certificate could be
issued to eligible recipients, defined to mean: the surviving
spouse, next of kin, and relative of the deceased veteran. He
added that in this sense the eligible recipient is the same in
both sections of the bill. He said "veteran" is defined in AS
26.10.080. He said this is a small token of the state's
appreciation for people who have really gone out of their way to
help the country and the state of Alaska.
8:24:42 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if the effective date is such that it would
not negatively impact the bureau. He said there may be a
backlog of requests and he stated for the record that there may
be an issue of consistency regarding the combining of the two
bills.
8:26:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said it doesn't cost $30,000 a year to
print up the death certificates, because it's just a copy made
with a seal affixed to it. He added, "The only thing would be -
at least theoretically - these people might ... be requesting
death certificates."
8:26:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER noted that the previously mentioned death
certificate has a stamp on it that read, "FOR GOVERNMENT USE
ONLY Pursuant to A.R.S. 39-122.A this copy has been issued free
of charge for the purpose of applying for and obtaining
veteran's or Social Security Benefits and shall not be valid for
any other purpose." She asked what other purpose there would be
and why that stamp would be needed.
8:27:09 AM
MS. HOOK said that she spoke with Mr. Mitchell in Vital
Statistics, and he expressed concern that people would take
advantage of the program by requesting too many copies of death
certificates, which would in turn increase the cost of the
program.
8:27:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that originally when the bill
was drafted, he thought a person should be able to get as many
copies as desired. However, he said Mr. Mitchell was very
conservative. He said the way the language is currently
written, one certificate can be acquired. He said he would
consider a friendly amendment to broaden that language.
8:28:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said he would like to keep the language as
narrow as possible; however, he asked about private commercial
life insurance. He expressed concern that the bill not be bound
too much.
8:29:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that the language could be
deleted restricting the purpose of the certificate to obtaining
veterans' benefits, social security benefits, and other
government benefits. He also suggested that "copy" could be
made "copies".
8:30:18 AM
CHAIR SEATON said he thinks that Representatives Lynn and
Gruenberg have struck some kind of compromise, and he said he
would hate to jeopardize the swift passage of the bill by making
it too expansive.
8:30:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if the words that Representative
Gruenberg suggested striking would mean that "that one time the
bureau would issue a single certified copy."
8:31:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that instead of saying "a"
certified copy, say "one" certified copy. In response to a
question from Representative Gardner, he confirmed that the copy
would not be stamped regarding the restrictive purposes, and
thus the person could show the death certificate for varied
purposes.
8:31:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER moved Amendment 1 as follows:
On page 2, line 23:
Delete "a"
Insert "one"
On page 2, beginning on line 24:
Delete "for the purpose of obtaining veterans'
benefits, social security benefits, and other
government benefits"
8:33:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN [objected for the purpose of discussion].
He asked if it isn't necessary to have a new copy of a death
certificate for each purpose.
8:33:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that, in the case of the late Mr.
Epstein, he got one certificate and made copies.
8:33:36 AM
CHAIR SEATON treated Representative Lynn's objection as having
been withdrawn and asked if there was any other objection. No
objections were stated and Amendment 1 was adopted.
8:35:11 AM
CHAIR SEATON, in response to a suggestion from Representative
Gruenberg, stated for record that two fiscal notes would be sent
along with Version Y.
8:35:40 AM
CHAIR SEATON, after ascertaining that there was no one to
testify, closed public testimony.
8:35:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked how people will become aware of
this law if it is passed.
8:36:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he is not sure how that would be
done; however, he said the division usually has a pretty good
network to getting the word out to veterans' groups, for
example. He offered to inquire.
8:36:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER responded that if there are benefits to
survivors, "they need to know or it doesn't mean anything."
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER moved to report CSHB 167, Version 24-
LS0605\Y, Bullock, 4/11/05, as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, CSHB 167(STA) was reported out of the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 160-PUBLIC FUNDS & BALLOT PROPS/CANDIDATES
8:37:21 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the next order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 160, "An Act limiting the use of money of the state and
its political subdivisions to affect an election."
8:37:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE, Alaska State Legislature,
introduced HB 160 as sponsor. He said the original intent of
the bill is based on his opinion that the government should not
spend money to try to influence elections. He indicated that,
based on the concerns of a previous committee and some local
governments, he "didn't want to micromanage every local level"
and instead narrowed the focus to statewide propositions.
8:38:49 AM
CHAIR SEATON clarified that although there is a Version F in the
committee packet, the work draft presently before the committee
is the committee substitute (CS) for HB 160(CRA), Version 24-
LS0586\Y.
8:42:01 AM
CHAIR SEATON directed attention to [page 1, lines 4-14], which
read as follows:
*Section 1. AS 15.13.145(a) is amended to read:
(a) Except as provided in (b) and (c) of
this section, each of the following may not use money
held by the entity to influence the outcome of the
election of a candidate to a state or municipal office
or the outcome of an election concerning a state
ballot proposition:
(1) the state, its agencies, and its
corporations;
(2) the University of Alaska and its
Board of Regents;
(3) municipalities, school districts,
and regional educational attendance areas, or another
political subdivision of the state; and
(4) an officer or employee of an entity
identified in (1) - (3) of this subsection.
CHAIR SEATON asked for confirmation that the entities listed are
those that could not use the money.
8:42:54 AM
BEN MULLIGAN, Staff to Representative Bill Stoltze, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Stoltze, sponsor,
answered that's correct. In response to questions from the
committee, he explained that there is a suggested amendment in
the committee packet labeled, "24-LS0586\Y.1, Kurtz, 4/11/05,"
which read:
Page 1, line 1:
Delete "an"
Insert "a state"
Page 2 line 1 - 17:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 2. AS 15.13.145(b) is amended to read:
(b) Money held by an entity identified in (a)(3)
[(a)(1) - (3)] of this section may be used to
influence the outcome of a municipal [AN] election
concerning a ballot proposition or question, but only
if the funds have been specifically appropriated for
that purpose by [A STATE LAW OR] a municipal
ordinance.
* Sec. 3. AS 15.13.145(c) is amended to read:
(c) Money held by
(1) the division of elections or a
municipal election official [AN ENTITY IDENTIFIED IN
(a)(1) - (3) OF THIS SECTION] may be used
(A) [(1)] to disseminate information about
the time and place of an election and to hold an
election; or
(B) [(2)] to provide the public with the
information described in AS 15.58.020;
(2) a municipality, school district, regional
educational attendance area, or another political
subdivision of the state may be used to provide the
public with nonpartisan information about a ballot
proposition or question other than a state ballot
proposition or question or about all the candidates
seeking election to a particular [PUBLIC] office."
8:45:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS stated, "When I look at this, it kind of
brings to mind that maybe this is a backdoor attempt to get
around the [Frustrated Responsible Alaskans Needing Knowledge
(FRANK)] Initiative." He reviewed that the FRANK Initiative
requires the government to notify the people of the total cost
of any proposed capital move, and "this would prohibit them from
doing that."
8:46:06 AM
CHAIR SEATON responded, "Knowing the sponsor, I would doubt that
was his intent."
8:46:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE said he thinks he supports the FRANK
Initiative enforcement more than the people of Juneau do,
because "they have a selective enforcement of the FRANK
Initiative," while he wants it to apply to all expenses on any
capital. He stated, "The crux of the FRANK Initiative is that
the public has the right to vote on the cost of the relocation
of the capital, and I don't dispute that. ... That's a right
that the public has demanded twice at the ballot box."
8:46:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS replied that the way he reads HB 160, the
government would "not be allowed to give them that cost so that
they could make an intelligent decision."
8:47:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE said the government could provide the
cost in a public document. He said, "I think it's going to be
available to the public .... I think the press will deliver it.
I think it would still be allowed to be printed right in the
ballot statement; that's very explicit in our language."
Representative Stoltze respectfully disagreed that [HB 160]
would have any bearing on the Frank Initiative.
8:48:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS remarked that the City of Fairbanks held
an election some years ago to sell its water utility and phone
company. The vote was supported by the people of Fairbanks and
the result has been the significant public employees' retirement
system (PERS) deficit, which is up to $89 million and growing.
He said a lot of money was spent by the City of Fairbanks
advocating the sale of those assets. He asked if there is a
limit on how much a school system or municipality can spend in
representing their point of view and whether they can outspend
the private sector.
8:49:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE replied that if they pass a local
ordinance, there's no limit. He said he still has a fundamental
philosophical problem with the government's spending money to
tell the people how they should vote. He offered further
details.
8:51:19 AM
CHAIR SEATON mentioned a statewide bond issue regarding rural
school construction and a "70-30 bond debt reimbursement by
municipalities." He questioned how [HB 160] would affect that
statewide bond proposition, and who could or could not use funds
to campaign for it. He clarified that he is trying to figure
out whether, if there is a statewide initiative that impacts a
municipality, the bill would prevent that municipality from
communicating its concerns with its citizens through
campaigning.
8:53:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE replied that he's never known local
officials to be shy about sharing their opinions. He said he
thinks the appropriate measure is to form a political action
committee or advocacy group.
8:54:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said she is concerned about the bill.
She offered an example of a public affairs official of a museum
who wants to advocate for museum expansion because he/she
believes to do so would be in the best interest of the
community. She said under HB 160, that public affairs official
would be prohibited from actively working toward passage of
legislation that would improve the museum.
8:54:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE said he respectfully disagrees. He said,
"I think you would be prohibited from acting in the capacity as
the museum director during the work hours, if it's clearly
spending public funds, but I don't think you check your First
Amendment rights at the door. And I think that's been clearly
upheld."
8:55:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER clarified that she is asking about a
situation in which it's the job of the museum official to ensure
that the museum gets all the funding it needs, for example, in
order to serve its function in the community.
8:56:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE responded that that may be construed as a
use of resources if that official is on the state payroll or
actively promoting the passage of a statewide bond proposition.
He said he would "get that clarified."
8:57:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS indicated that he did not initially like
the bill, but then he read "vigorous opposition from officials."
He said, "It makes me nervous when elected officials get an
unfair megaphone compared to the private sector to try and
dictate what the private sector should be doing." He stated
that he's not certain how he would vote for this issue on the
House floor, but he said he believes he supports the notion that
the legislature should be discussing how public money is spent
"to affect the outcomes of these things." He asked why there is
so much opposition from elected officials in small communities.
8:58:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE said, "I think part of it is [the Alaska
Municipal League (AML)] has been on the phone for the last week
and saying, 'This is going to prevent you from talking about a
local school bond.' I think there's been a lot of bad faith
misrepresentation, with all due respect, because I've confirmed
some of that through conversations."
8:58:28 AM
CHAIR SEATON interjected that he wants to make sure the
conversation remains focused on the bill rather than on other
people's actions.
8:58:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his understanding that a
municipal government can hold money from at least the following
four sources: money from it's own tax base or revenue source;
money from the state; money from federal government; and money
from other sources. He offered examples. He stated that the
bill seems to limit the municipality's ability to use money from
any source, not just state money, and he questioned the
constitutionality of doing so. He offered further details. He
clarified that his constitutional question relates to free
speech, to the supremacy clause in the case of the federal
constitution, and to the inherent powers of a municipality.
CHAIR SEATON recommended a legal opinion be sought from
Legislative Legal and Research Services and take up the issue in
future committee discussion.
9:02:40 AM
CAROL COMEAU, Superintendent, Anchorage School District,
testifying on behalf of the district, said she is pleased that
Version Y will allow municipalities and school districts to
"continue to educate the public." She stated that a
superintendent and his/her staff cannot advocate and must give
facts. She said she thinks it's the obligation [of the
superintendent's office] to give the public enough information
if, for example, the community is being asked to support a
school bond that will impact taxes. She noted that the school
board is allowed to advocate. She stated, "We believe we've
been very upfront and honest and heavily scrutinized by
everybody about what we're saying and what our information is."
She said she believes that the public is informed when money
spent is part of the budget.
9:05:40 AM
MS. COMEAU said she took personal leave as superintendent any
time she worked on campaigning for Proposition C. and the
district did not contribute to the campaign. She offered
further details. She said she is happy to work with the
committee on HB 160.
9:08:02 AM
MS. COMEAU, in response to a question from Representative
Gardner, she said she believes that Version Y would allow [the
Anchorage School District] to "continue doing what we've been
doing," but she said she has not seen the suggested amendment.
9:08:13 AM
MR. MULLIGAN, in response to a request from Chair Seaton,
offered his understanding of what the suggested amendment would
do.
9:08:58 AM
MS. COMEAU said that based on Mr. Mulligan's understanding, [the
district] would be supportive of "this."
9:09:36 AM
RON LONG, testifying on behalf of himself, said he has only just
seen Version Y, but is encouraged by the testimony he has heard
thus far. He explained that the original bill version had
caused him concern. He stated that he is not part of any good-
or bad-faith effort to overturn anyone's right "to influence
anybody about anything," but he believes that there is "a large
gap between informing people of the time and place of an
election and telling people how to vote." Somewhere within that
gap, he continued, lies factual information that voters
reasonably look to their elected officials to provide. He
offered some examples. He continued:
If we take away that gap and conclude that there's
nothing left beyond time and place that's not telling
people how to vote, then we leave people looking for
their facts that will form the basis of their vote
from the coffee shop, from letters to the editor, from
the newspapers - whom of course we know wouldn't print
it if it wasn't true.
I think the existing system is working pretty well.
The consequences are pretty straightforward and not
usually pleasant for anyone - whether they're state or
local - that abuses the system as it exists. ... It's
not plausible to me to conclude that everyone in local
... or state government is incapable of acting
responsibly within the existing law, and this is more
fixed than I think is needed for some of the abuses
that may have occurred somewhere around the state.
... I'm accepting on good faith that Y.1 will address
the concerns of other local officials like myself who
feel that we need to fairly represents some factual
evidence to the public so that they can make an
informed decision, without stepping over the line and
telling them how to vote.
9:13:15 AM
TOM BOEDEKER, City Manager, City of Soldotna, Alaska, expressed
concerns with the scope of bill. He stated one concern is that
the bill "goes way beyond advocacy; it limits the type of
information that can be distributed to time and place ...." He
mentioned the state ballot proposition, which he said often
affects municipalities. He said his job is to inform the city
council and the citizens of Soldotna, and [HB 160] would put him
in the position of saying, "I can't give you that information,
because it could be viewed as information beyond time and place
of the election." He predicted that that kind of restriction
would cost him his job. He stated that he understands the
issues the sponsor has regarding advocacy of outcomes, but he
said the bill goes well beyond that and is "much more than is
needed to solve the problem."
9:15:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS asked Mr. Boedeker if he thinks there are
a lot of people in his municipality who look to the local
government to provide "information of this kind" to them prior
to an election.
9:16:04 AM
MR. BOEDEKER answered yes. He said in almost every instance
where a proposition could affect the municipality, he has been
asked to speak at the Chamber of Commerce and before various
groups in the community to explain the pros and cons of the
issue. He concluded, "This occurs on a regular basis in a
community like Soldotna, and I think in many other communities."
9:16:34 AM
BROOKE MILES, Executive Director, Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC), stated that APOC has not taken a position on
HB 160. Notwithstanding that, she suggested that she could
illustrate how the proposed legislation would change current
law. Regarding the suggested amendment, she said it "would go a
far way to clarify ... what the sponsor is intending to do
here."
9:17:43 AM
MS. MILES reviewed that under the current campaign disclosure
law, municipalities and the state are restricted from ever using
funds to advocate on behalf of a candidate and from using them
on behalf of ballot propositions unless those funds are
specifically appropriated by a municipal ordinance or by state
law. She said it happened last year that when agencies came
before the legislature asking for specific appropriations to
advocate on behalf of a potential ballot question, they were
denied. However, different municipalities have approved school
board advocacy on behalf of school bonds.
MS. MILES directed attention to page 2, lines 4-7, which she
noted is language that was removed from Version Y [shown in
brackets and capitalized] but would be reinserted with the
suggested amendment, Y.1. That language [with the beginning of
the sentence from line 2] read:
(b) Money held by an entity identified in
(a)(1)-(3) of this section may be used to disseminate
information about the time and place of an election
[INFLUENCE THE OUTCOME OF AN ELECTION CONCERNING A
BALLOT PROPOSITION OR QUESTION, BUT ONLY IF THE FUNDS
HAVE BEEN SPECIFICALLY APPROPRIATED FOR THAT PURPOSE
BY A STATE LAW OR A MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE].
MS. MILES indicated her belief that APOC would support the
language [being added back].
9:19:18 AM
MS. MILES, regarding the question of public employees "taking
action" during their regular duties, noted that there is a
current law that provides that in the absence of a specific
appropriation, those entities listed [on page 1, subsection (a),
paragraphs (1)-(4)] may use money held by "the entity" to
communicate about a ballot proposition or question if the
communication is made in the usual and customary performance of
the officer's or employee's duties. For example, she said if
[Mr. Boedeker], City Manager, Soldotna, routinely attends
meetings where he provides information and speaks to questions
that are on the ballot, that would not be a violation of law.
9:20:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that in the suggested amendment
there would still be a prohibition of an appropriation by a
subsequent state legislature. He asked Ms. Miles if she could
comment regarding the constitutionality of the current
legislature's limiting the ability of a future legislature to
appropriate.
9:21:52 AM
CHAIR SEATON suggested that that opinion could be asked of
Legislative Legal and Research Services.
9:22:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN recalled that he had, during his campaign,
sent out what he thought were political advocacy "mailers," but
suggested that they could have been called educational. He
questioned where the line is drawn. He concluded, "It seems to
me that the whole thing has become rather disingenuous."
9:23:33 AM
MS. MILES responded that there are major differences in the
rules that regulate how a candidate conducts his/her campaign
and how the campaigns for ballot issues are conducted. For
example, she said the law has no restriction on who can
contribute to a ballot issue or question. Furthermore, there is
not restriction on the amount that is contributed. She added,
"And as you all are very much aware, that is not the situation
with respect to candidate campaign." Ms. Miles offered the
example that sometimes the PTA might take a poll of all
candidates and then publish that poll in the paper, which she
said would be just informational. She stated, "But ...
basically everything that's sent by a candidate's campaign is
viewed to be in support of that candidate's candidacy."
9:25:22 AM
MS. MILES, in response to a question from Representative
Gardner, said although she has not had much time to study this
legislation, she doesn't think that it would change "the area
that was carved out by regulation to protect the elected or
appointed officials' rights of free speech."
9:25:53 AM
ANNE MARIE HOLEN, Staff, City Manager's Office, Homer, Alaska,
testified on behalf of the City Manager in opposition to HB 160.
Ms. Holen reminded the committee that municipalities around the
state have been hit hard by the elimination of state revenue
sharing and other state funding. Last October, the Homer City
Council put a question on the ballot to increase the local sales
tax to address a projected budget shortfall in 2005. That
measure failed and criticism was expressed by the public that
the city had not offered enough information to explain why the
tax increase was needed. The City Council of Homer decided to
put the question back on the ballot for a special election in
March, that time making a concerted effort to supply all the
facts regarding increased expenses, reduced revenues, and what
it would mean if the sales tax did or did not pass. As a result
of the increased public education effort, the voters passed the
tax increase.
MS. HOLEN concluded:
We were shocked to learn of a bill that would allow
municipal funds to be spent only to disseminate
information about the time and place of an election.
And, frankly, our dismay would ... extend to
legislation that narrowed the scope to statewide
ballot questions; although that would be less onerous,
we still feel like it is not good public policy. ...
Following the elimination of state revenue sharing, HB
160 is sort of like adding insult to injury for local
governments, and we urge you to vote against this
bill.
9:28:33 AM
CHAIR SEATON noted that the latest version of bill takes care of
some of Ms. Holen's concerns.
9:29:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE welcomed all local officials to call his
office. He stated his intent has been to work with the
municipalities.
9:30:13 AM
KATHY WASSERMAN, Policy & Program Coordinator, Alaska Municipal
League (AML), testified on behalf of AML in opposition to HB
160. She stated it is the job of AML to keep municipalities
aware of legislation. She said, "Sometimes that works to the
benefit of the sponsors on bills that they may have before the
legislature." She said information positions that explain local
and/or state impacts should be expected by constituents. She
said, "We believe constituents want strong positions on issues
by the people they elect. Silence and the appearance of
waffling is not good leadership." The decision as to whether
money has been spent to influence voters should be made locally,
she opined, and should not be made by the legislature.
9:32:55 AM
MS. WASSERMAN stated her concerns: First, she said she is
worried about the sources of money that come to communities,
particularly regarding how to separate "what came from where and
how and where it is spent." Second, she emphasized her concern
with the "gray parameters" surrounding what is and is not
allowed. She said she thinks it puts local elected officials in
a dangerous spot not to know when they can or cannot say
something, or when they can or cannot spend money. She offered
further details. She concluded, "I don't think we should demean
the local voters by thinking that, at the local level, we can
tell them how to vote."
9:33:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS suggested that the city is telling the
public how to vote when it runs an advertisement. He asked why
it's not acceptable to just use letters to the editor, for
example. He asked, "Why does the government, beyond just
providing the election pamphlet information, have to insert
themselves into the fray. I mean, obviously, if it's put
forward by the municipality, the assembly, the city council,
[or] the mayor's ... [office], why do you then have to go
allocate money to ... prove the point?"
9:34:39 AM
MS. WASSERMAN responded, "I think they have already inserted
themselves into the fray - as being government or local
officials - when propositions come up, and I certainly think
that the local voters look to those elected officials for
information. Call that influence, if you will."
9:35:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS offered an example when the local
officials in Fairbanks decided that they wanted to put up a $30
million school bond. He said he finds it somewhat offensive
when those officials are able to insert themselves with money
and influence into that election. He said in that situation
only the public sector was speaking for the school bond; there
was no advocacy for the other side to suggest thinking about
whether the schools would be adequate for another 10, 20, or 30
years. He asked Ms. Wasserman to address that issue.
9:36:12 AM
MS. WASSERMAN said she has been aware of many groups around the
state who act as "advocates against things that local
governments ... or even the state has advocated." She
reiterated that the local school board who has put out a bond is
in the fray, and she thinks it is up to them to explain why.
She added, "And I would hope that their hands would not be tied
so that the only people you would hear are the ones against
those bonds." Ms. Wasserman said there are very few people on
the outside of local government who are going to be pushing for
more taxes; therefore, there needs to be an explanation [when
local officials are calling for more taxes]. She said
especially in the case of local municipalities looking for
money, sometimes "taxes are all that's left."
9:37:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested the best public policy is to
allow more free speech so that both sides are heard.
9:38:08 AM
MS. WASSERMAN concurred. She said the legislature, for example,
has been elected by the public to represent it.
9:38:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS responded:
I'm with you: public officials get elected to have an
opinion. But aren't you then asking the public
officials to spend the public's money to tell the
public what they should think?
9:38:55 AM
MS. WASSERMAN replied, "Telling infers that they are doing what
you say. I don't think that that happens with very many
people."
9:39:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS asked Ms. Wasserman if she finds that the
hard working public looks for explanations from government to
help them make an intelligent decision, because they haven't had
time to listen to the radio or [read the paper].
9:39:56 AM
MS. WASSERMAN answered yes. She offered an example regarding
the [percent of market value (POMV)] issue.
9:40:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS revealed that he had been against the POMV
until the state came to Ketchikan and made a presentation to the
chamber of commerce.
CHAIR SEATON closed public testimony.
9:41:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG reiterated his previously stated
concerns regarding the constitutionality of the proposed bill in
allowing the current legislature to set limits on future
legislatures. He said he would also like to know how the local
governments are supposed to separate out the money "so that they
know that this dollar that goes into the treasury is used for
this purpose." He said it seems an impossibility.
9:42:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE, regarding the first concern, said he
doesn't think it's an issue. He said there is already a statute
that prohibits the use of state funds to advocate for
candidates. Notwithstanding that, he said he would seek
clarification on the issue.
9:43:09 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked Representative Stoltze if he supports the
suggested amendment, labeled Y.1.
9:43:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE answered yes.
9:43:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment [1], labeled
24-LS0586\Y.1. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
[HB 160 was heard and held.]
9:44:29 AM
HB 238-PUBLIC EMPLOYEE/TEACHER RETIREMENT
9:44:37 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the last order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 238, "An Act relating to contribution rates for
employers and members in the defined benefit plans of the
teachers' retirement system and the public employees' retirement
system and to the ad-hoc post-retirement pension adjustment in
the teachers' retirement system; requiring insurance plans
provided to members of the teachers' retirement system, the
judicial retirement system, the public employees' retirement
system, and the former elected public officials retirement
system to provide a list of preferred drugs; relating to defined
contribution plans for members of the teachers' retirement
system and the public employees' retirement system; and
providing for an effective date."
CHAIR SEATON noted that the committee had discussed several
changes to Version L and those changes are shown in a handout
with color-coded type [included in the committee packet]. He
announced he would give the committee three minutes to review
the handout before proceeding with the bill hearing.
The committee took an at-ease from 9:45:19 AM to 9:48:06 AM.
9:48:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS noted that the committee members had
received a facsimile that mornings from AARP advising the
committee to take HB 238 slowly. He said he thinks that is good
advice.
9:48:31 AM
CHAIR SEATON agreed that the matter before the committee is
"extremely serious." He returned to the subject of the color-
coded handout and explained that it contained all the ideas for
amendments that the committee had discussed at its prior
meeting. He stated his intent for the committee to adopt all
the changes in the handout as a unit rather than adopting
individual amendments.
9:50:01 AM
KATHERINE SHOWS, Staff to Representative Paul Seaton, Alaska
State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Seaton, chair of
the House State Affairs Standing Committee, sponsor, reviewed
the color-coded handout. She said the changes would be to the
following categories: changing "health reimburse account" to
"health reimbursement arrangement"; adding definitions where
needed; making changes in semantics; clarifying the part of the
bill that addresses cost sharing as it relates to the increasing
health care costs; addressing the committee's concerns regarding
a retiree's acquiring dependents after retirement; and
eliminating the language that spoke to the issue of generic
drugs and changing it to intent language for the Division of
Retirement & Benefits. She said there would be no change of the
intent of the bill.
9:52:38 AM
MS. SHOWS, in response to a question from Representative
Gruenberg, explained that the red type shows the changes that
she made, while the blue type shows the language changes by Brad
Lawson of Mercer Human Resource Consulting.
9:52:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if the intent language would be
in the form of a letter of intent or an intent section in the
bill.
9:53:15 AM
CHAIR SEATON said he believes that would be an intent section in
the bill.
MS. SHOWS said she expects that the bill drafter will put that
into more formal language.
9:53:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated his assumption that there will
be a new committee substitute (CS) that contains the changes in
the handout.
CHAIR SEATON answered yes. He added that he didn't want to
create a CS without first displaying the changes in writing that
the committee spoke of previously.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he is not familiar with the word
"arrangement" as a legal term of art. He also recommended that
the phrase "must retire directly" is the most accurate term to
use.
9:54:41 AM
MS. SHOWS said the actual language in the Internal Revenue
Service (IRS) code is "arrangement," although "account" is the
more well-known term.
9:55:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG observed that there appear to be
typographical errors in the color-coded handout and urged Ms.
Shows to clear those before giving it to the bill drafter.
9:56:04 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked the committee members if there was any
objection to adopting the language in the handout into a new
committee substitute. There being no objection, it was so
ordered.
9:57:05 AM
CHAIR SEATON referred to a handout included in the committee
packet showing the "Projected Values for Health Reimbursement
Accounts," [with various scenarios, including early or late
hire, with spouse, PERS "other," PERS police/fire, and TRS]. He
reviewed that the early hire provision is when someone works for
30 years and, in the example provided, retires at 55. In that
example, the employee would probably not be able to make the
medical payments necessary. He said the question is whether to
choose a 30-years-and-out retirement provision or to set
retirement at age 60. At age 60 and with an HRA provision of 2
percent, the tables show that there would probably be adequate
funding to allow people to transition between early retirement
at age 60 and Medicare eligibility. Another option for the
committee to consider is whether to just have a big warning:
"If you retire before age 60 and are required to have medical
insurance bridging that coverage, our projections are that if
you don't have ... another job with medical coverage [or]
medical coverage with spouse that you can identify, the plan
will not provide you sufficient money to bridge [the gap] and
you will lose your post-Medicare eligible contribution." He
summarized that the question is whether to go with a
conservative approach or to just issue a warning. He said
another option would be to decide to increase to a 3 percent
HRA, or some other mechanism to fund the early retiree. He
stated, "That is the philosophical problem that we have to
address."
9:59:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would like to hear various
groups testify regarding this issue to find out what they want.
10:00:32 AM
CHAIR SEATON said he wants to put these questions out to be
addressed at the succeeding hearings on HB 238.
[HB 238 was heard and held.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
10:01:44 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|