Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 106
05/03/2005 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB277 | |
| HB283 | |
| HB189 | |
| SB132 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 277 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 283 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 189 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 132 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 28 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
May 3, 2005
8:04 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Paul Seaton, Chair
Representative Carl Gatto, Vice Chair
Representative Jim Elkins
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Jay Ramras
Representative Berta Gardner
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 277
"An Act naming the Charles Gamble Jr. - Donald Sperl Joint Use
Facility in Juneau."
- MOVED HB 277 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 283
"An Act relating to the compensation for board members of the
Alaska Housing Finance Corporation; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 283(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 189
"An Act relating to an extension for review and approval of
revisions to the Alaska coastal management program; providing
for an effective date by amending the effective date of sec. 45,
ch. 24, SLA 2003; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 189(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 132(efd fld)
"An Act relating to complaints filed with, investigations,
hearings, and orders of, and the interest rate on awards of the
State Commission for Human Rights; and making conforming
amendments."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 28
"An Act relating to the municipal dividend program; and
providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 277
SHORT TITLE: GAMBLE-SPERL UAS JOINT USE FACILITY
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KERTTULA
04/19/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/19/05 (H) MLV, STA
04/30/05 (H) WAIVE MLV REFERRAL DENIED
05/02/05 (H) MLV REFERRAL WAIVED
05/03/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 283
SHORT TITLE: AK HOUSING FINANCE CORP BOARD COMP.
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KOTT
04/21/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/21/05 (H) STA, FIN
04/28/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
04/28/05 (H) Heard & Held
04/28/05 (H) MINUTE(STA)
05/03/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 189
SHORT TITLE: COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
SPONSOR(s): STATE AFFAIRS
03/01/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/01/05 (H) CRA, STA, RES
04/28/05 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
04/28/05 (H) Moved CSHB 189(CRA) Out of Committee
04/28/05 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
04/29/05 (H) CRA RPT CS(CRA) NT 4NR 1AM
04/29/05 (H) NR: SALMON, LEDOUX, OLSON, THOMAS;
04/29/05 (H) AM: NEUMAN
04/29/05 (H) FIN REFERRAL ADDED AFTER RES
05/03/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: SB 132
SHORT TITLE: HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
03/04/05 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/04/05 (S) STA, JUD
03/17/05 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/17/05 (S) Heard & Held
03/17/05 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/29/05 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/29/05 (S) Moved SB 132 Out of Committee
03/29/05 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/30/05 (S) STA RPT 3NR 1AM
03/30/05 (S) NR: THERRIAULT, WAGONER, HUGGINS
03/30/05 (S) AM: DAVIS
04/07/05 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
04/07/05 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/08/05 (H) JUD AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 120
04/08/05 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/14/05 (S) JUD RPT 1DP 2NR 2AM
04/14/05 (S) DP: SEEKINS
04/14/05 (S) NR: THERRIAULT, HUGGINS
04/14/05 (S) AM: FRENCH, GUESS
04/14/05 (S) JUD AT 8:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
04/14/05 (S) Moved SB 132 Out of Committee
04/14/05 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/21/05 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/21/05 (S) VERSION: SB 132(EFD FLD)
04/22/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/22/05 (H) STA, JUD
05/03/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE BETH KERTTULA
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As sponsor of HB 277, presented Senator Kim
Elton and Representative Bill Thomas.
SENATOR KIM ELTON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 277.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL THOMAS
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 277.
WALTER A. SOBELEFF, JR.
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of himself during the
hearing on HB 277.
CARLOS C. CADIENTE
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of himself during the
hearing on HB 277.
KARYL D. "BUNNY" LINDEGAARD
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the Class of 1965
and herself during the hearing on HB 277.
LORRAINE DAVIS
(Address not provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Her testimony supporting HB 277 was read by
Karyl D. "Bunny" Lindegaard.
MIKE O'HARE, Staff
to Representative Pete Kott
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the HB 283 on behalf of
Representative Kott, sponsor.
BRIAN BUTCHER, Director
Government Relations and Public Affairs
Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
283.
DANIEL R. FAUSKE, Chief Executive Officer (CEO)/Executive
Director
Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
283.
MORRIS NASSUK, Director
Bering Strait Coastal Management Program
(Address not provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support
of "the extension for the OCRM approval program changes" and in
opposition to "the 2011 sunset clause" during the hearing on HB
189.
MARV SMITH, Community Development Coordinator
Lake & Peninsula Borough
(Address not provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of a six-month
extension of time during the hearing on HB 189.
JOHN OSCAR, Program Director
Cenaliulriit Lake Coastal Resource Service Area District (CRSA)
(Address not provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 189.
SCOTT NORDSTRAND, Deputy Attorney General (AG)
Civil Division
Office of the Attorney General
Department of Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced SB 132.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:04:09 AM. Representatives
Seaton, Gatto, Elkins, Lynn, and Gardner were present at the
call to order. Representatives Ramras and Gruenberg arrived as
the meeting was in progress.
HB 277-GAMBLE-SPERL UAS JOINT USE FACILITY
8:04:40 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the first order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 277, "An Act naming the Charles Gamble Jr. -
Donald Sperl Joint Use Facility in Juneau."
8:04:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BETH KERTTULA, Alaska State Legislature, as
sponsor of HB 277, thanked the committee for so promptly hearing
the bill and presented Senator Kim Elton and Representative Bill
Thomas.
8:05:06 AM
SENATOR KIM ELTON, Alaska State Legislature, noted that 35 years
ago, he would have introduced himself as "U.S. 50203352" - a
draftee of the U.S. Army who served in Vietnam from 1969 through
1970. He introduced the parents, sister, and brother-in-law of
the late Donald Sperl. He said the Sperl family has brought
some of the memorabilia of Donald Sperl to share with the
committee. He also introduced the family and friends of Charles
Gamble.
SENATOR ELTON said Charles and Don lived their entire lives in
Juneau, Alaska, and joined the army and ended up in Vietnam.
Charles was born November 16, 1948, and died October 28, 1969,
as a result of a helicopter crash in Vietnam. Donald was born
January 12, 1948, and died May 8, 1968 from wounds received in
the line of duty. He noted that both of the men would have been
his age if they were still alive.
8:07:53 AM
SENATOR ELTON reported that the joint use facility - both armory
and student recreation - will be completed on the University of
Alaska campus in July [2005]. He offered his understanding that
the facility will be the only one in the nation that is used as
both a university recreation center and as an armory. The
facility is being built with federal, state, and university
funds. He stated that naming the facility after Charles Gamble
and Donald Sperl will be an important reminder [of what these
men have sacrificed]. Senator Elton shared that during his last
visit to Washington, D.C., he visited the Vietnam War Memorial
and found the names of both Mr. Sperl and Mr. Gamble on the
wall. He concluded, "It would be very, very important, I think,
for the community, if we could honor them locally instead of
just in our nation's capital."
8:09:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BILL THOMAS, Alaska State Legislature, said he
knows both families well, having met them after he returned from
Vietnam. He said, "It took me 18-20 years before I had the guts
to go see the Sperl family." He explained that he grew up with
"Donny," meeting him on the basketball court during high school.
He said he went to college with Donald Sperl. He said he was
drafted to Vietnam on December 7, 1966 as U.S. 50202962. He
related a story of running into Donald and Charles on his way to
duty. Both men were serving as medics. Representative Thomas
stated his support of HB 277.
8:11:47 AM
SENATOR ELTON, in response to a question from Representative
Gardner, confirmed that Donald Sperl and Charles Gamble were the
only two men from Juneau who lost their lives in the Vietnam
War. He stated for the record that the effort to name the
facility began about the same time an agreement was made to
build it, about three years ago. He revealed that there is an
institutional bias within the university to name facilities
after university folks, and there is an institutional bias to
name armories after those in the National Guard. He emphasized
that both of those biases are appropriate. He said it's
important for the record to reflect that while these are the
only two ... young men from Juneau who died in Vietnam, there
are people from Juneau, and around the state who are presently
serving in Iraq, and if any harm should come to them, he is
certain that Representatives Kerttula and Thomas would join him
in welcoming additions to the names on the building. He said he
thinks the naming of the facility is especially appropriate,
because it's a facility designed for young men and women both at
the university and serving in the [National Guard].
8:13:58 AM
SENATOR ELTON, in response to a question from Chair Seaton,
confirmed that the borough assembly passed a resolution in
support of the naming of the facility.
8:14:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA noted that the university did have
concerns because normally the board of regents and students are
involved. However, she noted that Chancellor Pugh has asked
that the rooms within the building remain available to name.
She said she thinks that was a gracious compromise from the
university.
8:14:50 AM
CHAIR SEATON noted for the record that he saw the chancellor nod
his head in agreement to that statement.
8:15:06 AM
WALTER A. SOBELEFF, JR., testifying on behalf of himself, stated
that [the Vietnam War] was largely unpopular and veterans from
that war have "just gone by the wayside." He said recognition
given to Donald Sperl and Charles Gamble is long overdue. He
noted that there is a memorial to a dog on Juneau's waterfront.
He spoke of the sacrifices of the men and of their families.
CHAIR SEATON assured Mr. Sobeleff that he would find wide
support for the bill.
8:16:22 AM
CARLOS C. CADIENTE, testifying on behalf of himself, told the
committee that Charles Franklin Gamble - also known as "Skoogie"
- was one of his best friends. He said Charles was a full-blood
Alaska Native. Mr. Cadiente listed the names of the late Mr.
Gamble's parents and sisters. He noted that Donald Sperl was an
outstanding varsity athlete. He said both Donald and Charles
were loved by all their classmates at Juneau Douglas High
School, and both had the ability to bridge all people in the
community together. Mr. Cadiente said he and his father debated
the Vietnam War; he said he believed that war was not the
answer. He said his father was devastated when Charles died in
Vietnam.
MR. CADIENTE shared a photograph of his father next to "panel
17-West of the Vietnam Memorial, where Charles' name is
inscribed. He stated that it would be a great tribute to both
Donald and Charles, who made the ultimate sacrifice, to name the
new building in their honor. He noted that Charles' family also
approves of the naming of the building after both their son and
Donald Sperl. He added, "I ... think that naming in honor of
Charles and Don would also be a belated thank you from all our
Alaskan communities to all those who have served in Vietnam."
Furthermore, he opined that it would honor all the Alaskan
soldiers who are currently in harm's way. He urged the
committee to support HB 277.
8:18:58 AM
CHAIR SEATON said he knows it's difficult to testify, and he
emphasized how much he appreciates the efforts of those
testifying, as well as of [those who serve their country].
8:19:05 AM
KARYL D. "BUNNY" LINDEGAARD, testifying on behalf of the Class
of 1965 and herself, said meetings are being held in preparation
for a 40-year reunion this year. She said, "We will be missing
Donald Sperl."
LORRAINE DAVIS had her testimony read by Karyl D. "Bunny"
Lindegaard as follows:
I will be out of town tomorrow, until May 12. Just
wanted to say, "thank you" for this opportunity to
express support naming the new facility, "The
Sperl/Gamble Armory." What a tribute to the families
and those of us who went to JD-High with these men.
Please feel free to use my name in support of naming
this facility ....
MS. LINDEGAARD continued with her testimony. She said Donald
Sperl and Charles Gamble were young men of character. She
listed Donald's qualities. She said that people will be able to
explained to others the reason the building is named after the
two men. She stated, "They were men of responsibility, respect,
courtesy, and honesty, and that those values might be displayed
through their names and through their families' names on that
building, I thank you for any thoughtful consideration you will
give."
8:22:14 AM
CHAIR SEATON closed public testimony.
8:22:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to report HB 277 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, HB 277 was reported out of the House
State Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 283-AK HOUSING FINANCE CORP BOARD COMP.
8:23:40 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the next order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 283, "An Act relating to the compensation for board
members of the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation; and providing
for an effective date."
8:23:48 AM
MIKE O'HARE, Staff to Representative Pete Kott, Alaska State
Legislature, presented HB 283 on behalf of Representative Kott,
sponsor. He said the bill would increase the board meeting
compensation levels for public board members from the current
level of $100 to $400 per meeting. The $100 amount has been in
place since the inception of the corporation in 1971. He
explained that the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC)
Board is asked to consider and review topics having to do with
bonding, the mortgage industry, public housing, and many other
complex technical financial matters. The board members do not
draw a salary from AHFC. They are tasked to consider and
approve bond programs valued between $600 million and $1
billion.
MR. O'HARE said that with such responsibility, members must
spend a considerable amount of time educating themselves
regarding the issues. He said the proposed legislation will
allow the corporation to ensure having the most capable people
on the board. He stated that the per board meeting compensation
is applicable only to the four public board members of the
seven-member board of directors. The fiscal note is $14,400 in
corporate receipts per fiscal year.
8:25:52 AM
BRIAN BUTCHER, Director, Government Relations and Public
Affairs, Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC), added that
AHFC is a completely self-supporting corporation that does not
receive any state general funds and pays a $103 million dividend
to the state annually. In response to a question from Chair
Seaton regarding information pertaining to compensation rates of
other boards that he had requested at the prior hearing of HB
283, Mr. Butcher affirmed that he provided that information with
Chair Seaton's staff [included in the committee packet].
8:27:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER noted that the sponsor statement reveals
that board members spend a lot of their own time studying and
preparing for meetings. She asked for confirmation that the
bill proposes to increase the amount of reimbursement for only
the members' meeting time.
8:27:26 AM
MR. BUTCHER answered that's correct. He offered further
details. In response to Representative Gatto, he said the board
usually meets in Anchorage, but sometimes in Juneau or
"different places where we have public housing units." In
response to follow-up questions from Representative Gatto, he
said a board member's airfare and hotel rate is covered by the
corporation; the stipend in question is above and beyond those
costs and is considered compensation pay for the board meeting
time. He agreed with Representative Gatto that the stipend is,
essentially, like a salary. However, he pointed out that in
many cases board members have to take a day off work for a
meeting. He clarified that in many cases it costs board members
to participate in meetings. He reminded the committee that $400
is currently what Permanent Fund Corporation and Alaska Railroad
Board members receive. He said, comparatively, AHFC receives
less than most in terms of compensation.
8:29:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS offered his belief that the Permanent Fund
Corporation trustees are paid annually, and he asked if the AHFC
Board members are.
8:30:13 AM
MR. BUTCHER answered no. In response to a follow-up question
from Representative Ramras, he said the aggregate fund that AHFC
manages is $5 billion.
8:30:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS stated his support of the bill.
8:31:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if any other boards use the term
"or portion of the day" [on page 1, line 6,] regarding
compensation, and if the board would be paid for meeting only 15
minutes.
8:31:51 AM
MR. BUTCHER, to the first question, replied that he doesn't
know. Regarding the second question, he said the compensation
is applied "to the date of the board meeting." He said the
meetings tend to last 3-5 hours.
[VICE CHAIR GATTO was handed the gavel.]
8:32:26 AM
DANIEL R. FAUSKE, Chief Executive Officer (CEO)/Executive
Director, Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC), said the
length of meetings are five to six hours. Sometimes the
meetings carry over to the next day. Sometimes a subcommittee
will meet the day before a regular meeting, so that it can make
a recommendation to the board the next day. He said he has
never heard of a meeting that has lasted only 15 minutes and it
would not be proper to pay someone $400 for stopping by the
office to sign a paper, for example.
8:33:57 AM
VICE CHAIR GATTO asked if that means Mr. Fauske would act
negatively on any request.
8:34:13 AM
MR. FAUSKE responded that he has a good relationship with the
board and would deny someone if he felt that the intent of the
compensation was being abused.
8:34:36 AM
VICE CHAIR GATTO offered a scenario whereby board members meet
for dinner and talk business, have a meeting the next day, and
meet for breakfast the next morning and conduct business. He
asked if that would be an unlikely scenario.
8:35:11 AM
MR. FAUSKE said he cannot envision that happening.
8:35:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS asked, "So, you're telling me on the days
they travel they get no per diem?"
8:35:31 AM
MR. FAUSKE answered in the affirmative. He said the purpose of
the bill is to increase the amount of money board members
receive solely for the meetings they attend.
8:36:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS pointed out that a member from Wrangell
[attending a meeting in Anchorage] loses three days pay for
attending a meeting. He said he doesn't think it's right not to
be reimbursed for days of travel. He stated, "I have a hard
time supporting the $400, but not supporting the travel days is
harder for me than supporting the $400."
8:36:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER noted that the bill refers to AS
39.20.180, which she said is legislation that provides for
transportation and per diem expenses. She added, "So, my
understanding is that members would get transportation and per
diem on the days they're traveling as well as the days they're
actually meeting."
8:36:57 AM
MR. FAUSKE offered the following correction to his previous
statements: "They do get paid that day for travel. If they're
traveling on corporate business coming here, they do get their
pay for the day."
[CHAIR SEATON took back the gavel.]
8:37:24 AM
CHAIR SEATON stated, "I would like to note on another portion
that we are looking at the same compensation rate for the Alaska
Retirement Board. That's built into that piece of legislation,
as well."
8:37:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested standardizing the rate for
all boards and incorporating into HB 283 a section asking the
administration or appropriate entity to review all the boards
and submit a report to the legislature at the beginning of the
next session.
8:38:35 AM
CHAIR SEATON recommended the committee make that request of the
administration in a separate piece of legislation.
8:38:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER noted that the fiscal note states that
the members would receive the $400 compensation per meeting.
She said that is incorrect, because members would actually
receive the reimbursement per day.
8:39:03 AM
MR. BUTCHER confirmed that Representative Gardner is correct,
and he said he would change that.
8:39:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER questioned whether that would increase
the [amount of the fiscal note].
8:39:21 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked, "Were the calculations based on the way the
compensation was ... actually done, or [were] the calculations
in the fiscal note based just on an anticipated meeting date?"
8:39:46 AM
MR. BUTCHER replied that it was based on what the anticipated
cost to the corporation would be should the proposed legislation
pass.
CHAIR SEATON asked if that was based on the idea that the
compensation would be only on the day of the meeting, or whether
that included the travel days, as well.
MR. BUTCHER answered that of the four public members, one lives
in Anchorage and two others frequently participate by
teleconference; therefore, multiple-day meetings are "not
applicable in most cases." He said, "I don't know that it would
be a big difference; maybe a difference of a thousand dollars,
or so, depending on how you looked at it."
8:40:17 AM
CHAIR SEATON said he would not hold the bill up, but would like
Mr. Butcher to ensure that the issue is revised before the bill
is heard before the House Finance Committee. He said he would
like the House State Affairs Standing Committee to focus on the
policy issue of whether $400 is adequate for someone serving on
the board, rather than looking at the absolute terms of the
fiscal note.
8:41:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said, "If we decide that, for example,
... $400 a day is more than we should be spending for these
folks, we're not going to be able to roll this board back. By
doing this now, we are setting a precedent for what we're going
to be quite possibly doing with these other boards."
8:42:16 AM
CHAIR SEATON closed public testimony.
8:42:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN declared a potential conflict of interest;
he revealed that he is a licensed real estate associate broker
who has done business with AHFC in the past and may do so again
in the future.
8:42:44 AM
CHAIR SEATON noted Representative Lynn's conflict and stated, "I
make a ruling that it's not significant at this time."
8:42:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER moved Amendment 1, to delete "or portion
of a day". She explained that she is troubled by that phrase.
She said she read AS 18.56.030 and doesn't know that "a day" is
defined anywhere.
8:43:32 AM
CHAIR SEATON said he would like Representative Gardner to
clarify if the intent of the amendment is to say that a board
member has to work for a specific amount of time for it to count
as a day. He indicated that that is the problem he has with
Amendment 1.
8:44:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if a breakfast meeting on the day
of departure would be counted as a workday.
8:45:01 AM
CHAIR SEATON reminded Representative Gardner that since the
travel day is compensated, it doesn't matter whether or not
there is a breakfast meeting. He said the $400 a day
compensation rate is not really high when consideration is made
to the caliber of people being asked to make decisions for AHFC.
He said, "So, I think we may be getting into more technicalities
than we really want to."
8:45:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS said he has a hang up with any board or
commission member being paid more than a legislator. He said he
thinks it would be proper "that their per diem rate be tied to
ours."
8:46:26 AM
CHAIR SEATON clarified that although the money in question is
called a per diem, it really is a salary, not just expense
compensation. He added, "So, you'd have to compare it to our
salary, and I don't think we want to compare very many people to
our salaries, otherwise we wouldn't have anybody doing
anything."
8:47:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if any other statutes for any
other boards use the phrase, "or portion of a day".
8:48:09 AM
MR. BUTCHER responded that he doesn't know. He said the request
to Legislative Legal and Research Services was to change the
amount from $100 to $400 and "this is how it was drafted."
8:48:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he supports Amendment 1. He
explained that if the phrase "or portion of a day" is used only
in HB 283 and not in other statutes pertaining to other boards,
the result may be that "this statute" is interpreted
differently.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER restated Amendment 1 for clarification
purposes. She added, "And I'd like to say, if 'day' is not
defined, a 'portion of a day' is covered."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG added, "I would ask that that be done
with the understanding that I'll be offering that motion."
8:50:18 AM
CHAIR SEATON, upon a query from the committee secretary, stated
that he had objected to Amendment 1.
8:50:28 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gardner, Gruenberg,
Gatto, Elkins, and Lynn voted in favor of Amendment 1.
Representatives Ramras and Seaton voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 1 passed by a vote of 5-2.
CHAIR SEATON asked Representative Gruenberg if he wanted to
restate his request.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said, "I will do that after we move the
bill; if you're going to move the bill."
8:51:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER interpreted:
My reading of this, because it includes AS 39.20.180,
means that they do get per diem rate at essentially
the same rate as the legislature, according to the
regulations, on the travel date. So, what they would
now get is $400 a day for travel day, as well as the
same per diem that everybody else gets. Is that
correct?
8:51:40 AM
MR. BUTCHER responded that's correct. He said, "For the day
they're in Anchorage, they receive $40, or whatever the meal per
diem is for that day."
8:51:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO referred to the language: "may be
reimbursed by the corporation for actual and necessary
expenses". He indicated that the language "sounds like we're
telling them we're going to reimburse their hotel cost - 'actual
and necessary expense' - and their food cost." He continued,
"But what you told us was that that's already covered and this
is more of a salary. And yet, the language conflicts with
that."
8:52:54 AM
MR. BUTCHER explained that the corporation pays for the air
fare, hotel rate, and meal allowance, all of which are separate
from the $100 [or $400 if the bill is adopted] compensation for
the board meeting.
8:54:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER noted that the language that
Representative Gatto is asking about already exists in statute.
She said, "The only change we're making is the dollar amount."
8:54:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS asked Mr. Butcher to remind him how much
the dividend is that AHFC "throws off annually."
MR. BUTCHER answered that it's been $103 million a year for
about the last 8-10 years.
8:55:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS responded:
So, a billion dollars over the last 10 years has gone
to the general fund and we're arguing about moving the
per diem from $100 a day to $400 a day for a fiscal
note of $14,000 a year? For over 10 years, that would
be $140,000 dollars, and [AHFC] has thrown off a
billion dollars into the general fund for the use of
the state. Is that right?
8:55:28 AM
MR. BUTCHER replied, "In the last 10-15 years it's been about
$1.5 billion."
8:55:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS remarked, "We're probably not going to
change the per diem for awhile ..., so it could be $140,000 over
the next 10 years. And we may see another billion or two in
dividends over the next 10 years?"
8:55:48 AM
MR. BUTCHER responded that that's a possibility.
8:55:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said, "Point taken."
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER moved to report HB 283, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note that will also be amended. There being
no objection CSHB 283(STA) was reported out of the House State
Affairs Standing Committee.
8:57:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG presented a concept for a letter to be
transmitted from the committee as follows:
The House State Affairs Committee requests the
administration ... to provide a written response to
the following questions concerning all boards and
commissions, compensated and noncompensated ....
1) Should any [other] noncompensated boards and
commissions be compensated?
...
2) Should the compensation rate or rates be adjusted
or standardized and, if so, at what rates?
3) Should the following language be added to those
statutes that provide compensation at a daily rate "or
a portion of a day"?
... If legislation is warranted, the committee would
welcome proposed legislation.
8:58:41 AM
CHAIR SEATON said unless the committee has a burning desire to
address the letter with a committee action, he would prefer to
transmit the letter individually and "get the information back."
8:58:49 AM
HB 189-COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
8:58:56 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the next order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 189, "An Act relating to an extension for review and
approval of revisions to the Alaska coastal management program;
providing for an effective date by amending the effective date
of sec. 45, ch. 24, SLA 2003; and providing for an effective
date."
8:59:10 AM
CHAIR SEATON explained that HB 189 is sponsored by the House
State Affairs Standing Committee and was heard first by the
House Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee, during
which time "there was some frustration" which resulted in,
basically, a "one-line bill." Chair Seaton assured the
committee members that the House Community and Regional Affairs
Standing Committee fully anticipates that the House State
Affairs Standing Committee will make significant changes to the
bill. He said, "This isn't a fight between two committees."
9:00:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO moved to adopt the committee substitute
(CS) for HB 189, Version 24-LS0703\G, as a work draft. There
being no objection, Version G was before the committee.
9:00:49 AM
CHAIR SEATON reviewed that the committee had conducted a lengthy
meeting on the coastal zone management program, during which
there was discussion surrounding the sunsetting of House Bill
191 and districts that didn't get plans in by July 1. There
were problems in revising the state standards necessary in order
for "them to build their new plans around." He said there was
dissention between the federal approving agencies and the state
regarding "what those plans could be - whether it could be a
minor modification or would have to be a major amendment." He
said, "Those things are still working through the system." To
date, there is still no federal final approval of regulations,
and coastal districts are in limbo as to how to rewrite their
plans in a way that will be consistent.
CHAIR SEATON pointed out that some districts along Western
Alaska are widespread with a lot of communities to cover. Part
of the process for having a coastal management program is to get
local input and knowledge in the plans; so, "the timeframe of
constructing a plan is very difficult if you're going to get
meaningful public input."
CHAIR SEATON said [Version Y] has been constructed to change the
date at which the state plan has to be recognized by the federal
government, so that the action of House Bill 191 does not take
effect and kill the program on July 1. He said it would also
have the effect of sunsetting the program in 2011, so that the
legislature will have to review the program to extend it. Also
included in Version Y would be an extension of six months after
approval by federal office of the state's regulation, so that
the local districts know in entirety what they have to build
their plans on. He said, "After those state regulations are
finalized, ... adopted, and noticed, then there is a six-month
date in which they have to revise their plans and get them back
into the state. And the state then must finish ... [its] review
of those plans and certify those district plans by January 1,
2007." He said the state plan has to have the federal approval
by March 1, [2006].
9:05:32 AM
CHAIR SEATON, in response to a question from Representative
Gardner, reviewed that the two firm dates are March 1, 2006, and
January 1, 2007.
9:07:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if there is any possibility that
what's needed by March 1 may not be available. She explained
that she doesn't want to set a firm date "if we don't have
control of all the steps that lead up to that." She asked what
would happen if the federal approval was not obtained by March
1.
9:07:46 AM
CHAIR SEATON responded that currently the program ends on July 1
- when the legislature is not in session. The proposal is to
extend that to January 1, but that, he explained, means that the
legislature would have no ability "to influence and control that
decision." The March 1 date would give the legislature 45 days
in which to act "if nothing has happened."
9:08:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER clarified that she is just concerned
about having something in legislation that "all hinges on a
piece that we don't have any control over."
CHAIR SEATON said he agrees with Representative Gardner. He
pointed out that House Bill 191 had some dates in it and "every
one of them turned out to be unrealistic."
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER replied, "Exactly, and I don't want to
repeat that."
CHAIR SEATON said dates have "slipped" before, and if they do so
again, at least the legislature would be in session and "if both
houses and the administration want to, if something did go
really crazy, we could extend."
9:09:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said she is willing to not offer an
amendment she had thought to offer, in order that the bill will
move more quickly. In return, she asked for Chair Seaton's
commitment "to help with extending it if we need to because the
other pieces that we don't control haven't dropped into place
next session."
9:09:40 AM
CHAIR SEATON gave her his commitment to do that.
9:09:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked that there is only a week to
go in the session and asked if it will be possible to "get this
thing through."
9:10:51 AM
CHAIR SEATON noted that there is a bill on the Senate side that
is similar. He said he has been in communication with the chair
of the Senate State Affairs Standing Committee in an attempt to
"go on a common path."
9:11:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if it wouldn't allow more
breathing room to change March 1 to April 1, for example.
9:11:46 AM
CHAIR SEATON responded that the March 1 date gives the
legislature 45 days, which he said is adequate. He said, "There
have been a number of negotiations around that date, and that's
about 30 days longer than ... [we] were offered previously." He
noted that the Senate version of HB 189 is on the Senate
calendar today to be heard on the Senate floor.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said, "So, what we're doing is passing
this out so that that can be then put into the [House Resources
Standing Committee] directly."
CHAIR SEATON answered that's correct.
The committee took an at-ease from 9:13:14 AM to 9:13:26 AM.
9:13:36 AM
CHAIR SEATON said the bill on the Senate side doesn't have the
six-month approval time after federal approval, which he
indicated he thinks is important. In response to a question
from Representative Gruenberg, he said that language appears on
page 11, in Section 15.
The committee took an at-ease from 9:14:19 AM to 9:14:56 AM.
CHAIR SEATON stated another consideration is whether to put July
1, 2001, in the title of the bill.
9:15:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER moved Amendment 1 to add "on July 1,
2001", after the title sentence.
9:15:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected. He explained, "Because if
the vehicle is the Senate vehicle, they have to add that over
there [and] we're going to need a concurrent resolution. So,
you ought to be sure that they do a floor amendment to put that
in on the other bill."
The committee took an at-ease from 9:16:20 AM to 9:16:50 AM.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER [withdrew Amendment 1].
9:18:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER moved to report 24-LS0307\Y out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes.
9:18:36 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the motion to move the bill out of
committee must be withdrawn in order to open public testimony.
9:18:48 AM
MORRIS NASSUK, Director, Bering Strait Coastal Management
Program, testified in support of "the extension for the OCRM
approval program changes" and in opposition to "the 2011 sunset
clause." He urged the committee to support the extensions from
six months to a year.
9:20:08 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked Mr. Nassuk how important it is for [those
managing the Bering Strait Coastal Management Program] to know
what the final regulations are before they are required to
finalize their plans.
9:20:23 AM
MR. NASSUK responded that it's extremely important. He
explained that it's confusing to be told to follow certain
guidelines that haven't yet met with federal approval.
Currently, the program is in limbo because of unclear
guidelines.
9:20:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if six months would be adequate for
his program to prepare his plan and submit it once he knows the
state and federal plans.
9:21:14 AM
MR. NASSUK said [six months] would be an improvement over the
present deadline of July 1.
9:21:45 AM
MARV SMITH, Community Development Coordinator, Lake & Peninsula
Borough, testified in support of the six-month extension of
time, adding that more time would probably be needed. He said
he has put out plans for public review that took three years to
develop, and he has received feedback from many agencies. He
said, "I've got a lot of work to get done." He explained that
he found out there are a lot of problems that need to be worked
out with his contractor and it's questionable whether everything
can be done by July 1. He said, "I think the Coastal Management
Program is something that the people of Alaska have something to
do with." He stated his opposition to the sunset clause,
scheduled for 2011, because, depending on the administration in
office at the time, [the program] could possibly be eliminated.
9:23:18 AM
CHAIR SEATON said he thinks developers would hate to see [the
program] ended, because that would mean that they would have to
go to the boroughs for the land use planning, to the state for
state standards, and go separately to the federal government,
because there would be no consistency review. He asked the same
question of Mr. Smith as he did of Mr. Nassuk, regarding how
important it is to have the six-month extension begin after the
final federal approval of the state regulations.
9:24:18 AM
MR. SMITH responded that he cannot emphasize enough how
important it is.
9:25:18 AM
JOHN OSCAR, Program Director, Cenaliulriit Lake Coastal Resource
Service Area District (CRSA), said the district includes the
largest area of remote villages in the Yukon/Kuskokwim Delta
region of Alaska, with Yupik Eskimo spoken as the primary
language at public meetings. He said ACMP has been a successful
part of the communities in Alaska regarding the permitting
process. He said a one-year extension would be practical for
his program. He thanked the committee for its patience
regarding the extension of deadlines, which, he indicated,
assists everyone - the legislature, the state, and the majority
of districts - to comply with well-planned revisions "with fair
support from our constituency in Alaska." He stated that
although the sunset of date of July 1, 2011, is discomforting
for fear of "losing to the federal government agencies," he
stated his belief that it will "offer some compromise to revisit
the ... success of any program at that time."
9:26:56 AM
CHAIR SEATON closed public testimony.
9:27:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG [moved Amendment 2] as follows:
Page 12, line 10:
Between "July 1," and "."
Delete "2011"
Insert "2015"
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he is offering the amendment in
response to the public testimony.
9:28:41 AM
CHAIR SEATON objected to Amendment 2. He noted that the
original bill did not have a sunset date, but after intense
negotiations between various entities involved in the program, a
sunset date of 2011 was chosen.
9:29:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew Amendment 2. He added, "I
appreciate your efforts to get this extended."
9:29:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER moved to report CSHB 189, Version 24-
LS0703\Y, Bullock, 5/2/05, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being
no objection CSHB 189(STA) was reported out of the House State
Affairs Standing Committee.
The committee took an at-ease from 9:30:40 AM to 9:39:22 AM.
9:39:23 AM
SB 132-HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
[Contains brief mention of HB 202.]
9:39:25 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the last order of business was
SENATE BILL NO. 132(efd fld), "An Act relating to complaints
filed with, investigations, hearings, and orders of, and the
interest rate on awards of the State Commission for Human
Rights; and making conforming amendments."
9:39:31 AM
SCOTT NORDSTRAND, Deputy Attorney General (AG), Civil Division,
Office of the Attorney General, Department of Law, introduced SB
132, which he said is identical to HB 202. He stated that the
intent of the bill is to "enhance the effectiveness of the
Alaska State Commission for Human Rights ... (ASCHR), by
allowing the commission to evaluate complaints of unlawful
discrimination and to allocate its resources to prosecuting
those complaints that will best serve the commission's goal of
eliminating unlawful discrimination." The bill would: improve
commission procedures, enhance the fairness of commission
procedures, clarify what the commission may award to remedy
unlawful discrimination, and make some housekeeping changes.
MR. NORDSTRAND said the bill would enhance the commission's
effectiveness by allowing it to be more selective about the
cases it prosecutes. The executive director would be authorized
to choose the complaints of unlawful discrimination that merit
pursuit, based on: strength of evidence, severity of violation,
employer's history before the commission, and complaint's value
in establishing precedence.
MR. NORDSTRAND mentioned the Department of Fish & Game v. Meyer,
a case which required the director to take to hearing any
complaints supported by substantial evidence of unlawful
discrimination, without regard to such factors as the weakness
of the evidence or the strength of the employer's affirmative
offenses. He indicated that SB 132 would reverse the effect of
that case. The bill would allow a complainant to withdraw a
complaint before the accusation is served, but would preserve
the executive director's right to file a complaint on his/her
own if he/she disagrees with the complainant's withdrawal. The
bill would also improve commission procedures. It would permit
agreements during the prehearing - or conciliation phase, as
it's called in statute - to compromise damaged claims.
9:42:16 AM
MR. NORDSTRAND reviewed the process undergone when a person
believes he/she has been discriminated against. He explained
that once there is a finding of substantial evidence, that's
when the phase called conciliation begins, which is an attempt
to settle a case amicably between parties. If there is a
failure of conciliation, then the executive director tells the
commission that it is necessary to go forward with formal
procedures. He offered further details, including the steps of
a discovery process and a hearing before a hearing examiner. He
reiterated the effect that the Department of Fish & Game v.
Meyer case had. He noted that the claims under the Human Rights
Act can either be brought to the commission or to the superior
court, thus, if someone brings a claim, he/she would have to be
subjected to the test of summary judgment. He added, "Now, as
it stands, in the Human Rights Commission, you don't."
[CHAIR SEATON turned the gavel over to Vice Chair Gatto.]
9:47:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG spoke of the nuances between the civil
and prosecutorial aspects of the Human Rights Act. He asked Mr.
Nordstrand to provide the committee with a marked up copy of the
aforementioned case.
9:50:20 AM
MR. NORDSTRAND summarized that the intent of the bill is to give
the commission the ability to direct its resources in the best
way to alleviate the greatest amount of discrimination possible.
It would also allow a procedure to be followed if an
investigation is lacking in substantial evidence, which would
serve as a check on the executive director's authority. He
offered an example. He said the commission has concerns about
that because of the associated workload.
9:51:43 AM
VICE CHAIR GATTO said no one knows what the term "substantial"
means. He stated, "We're just trying to figure out a way to
keep the door from swinging open every time somebody nudges it."
He opined that it's impossible to reach a standard where any
possibility of discrimination can be denied.
9:52:23 AM
MR. NORDSTRAND said he thinks that's true. He continued as
follows:
What we've essentially done is recognized that we
can't really fix the substantial evidence problem.
... We could try to come up with new words, but new
words wouldn't make it clearer. So, what we've done
is we've said, "If there's substantial evidence - this
lowest standard of evidence - the door can swing open,
but there are reasons why the executive director may
choose not to go forward anyway." And we've listed
those criteria ...: If [there is] substantial
evidence, okay, go forward. But the executive
director could say, for example, "This person's
refusal to settle for a fair sum is unreasonable. And
we're not going to use the state's resources to go any
further when ... a fair settlement is $5,000 and they
say, 'I ... won't settle for less than [$50,000].'"
As the system stands now, ... it's not costing that
person to go forward .... So, there's sort of a
disincentive to settle, in some sense, because usually
the farther along in the process you go, the higher
the settlement offer gets, because the cost associated
with going forward increased. And so, this is a
recognition that as a check to that kind of
motivation, the executive director has to be a fair
judge of what should go forward and what ...
[shouldn't].
MR. NORDSTRAND directed attention to a handout in the committee
packet that shows a comparison of SB 132 with last year's Senate
Bill 354.
9:54:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that he, Chair Seaton, and
Representative Lynn spent a fair amount of time on [Senate Bill
354].
9:54:48 AM
MR. NORDSTRAND stated that, in addition to the procedural
changes, the bill also would enhance the fairness of the
commission's procedures by requiring "charges in the
accusation." He explained that the complaint is what the person
brings to the commission and signs. The accusation happens
after that; it clarifies the charge against the person. The
bill would require that charges in the accusation - that the
executive director issues after deciding to pursue a complaint
to hearing - be based upon an investigators determination of
substantial evidence. He offered further details.
9:56:46 AM
VICE CHAIR GATTO asked that Mr. Nordstrand come back on
Thursday.
[SB 132 was heard and held.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
9:57:17 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|