03/16/2006 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB290 | |
| HB438 | |
| HB45 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 290 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HJR 34 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 438 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| = | HB 45 | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 16, 2006
8:13 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. 290
"An Act relating to issuance of identification cards and to
issuance of driver's licenses."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 438
"An Act relating to initiative, referendum, and recall
petitions; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 45
"An Act amending the definition of the term 'lobbyist' in the
Regulation of Lobbying Act; and providing for an effective
date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 34
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
limiting appropriations from certain mineral revenue, relating
to the balanced budget account, and relating to an appropriation
limit.
- BILL HEARING CANCELED
CONFIRMATION HEARING: STATE COMMISSION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
- HEARING POSTPONED TO 3/21/06
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 290
SHORT TITLE: REQUIREMENTS FOR DRIVER'S LICENSE/I.D.
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) LYNN
04/28/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/28/05 (H) STA, JUD
03/09/06 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/09/06 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
03/16/06 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 438
SHORT TITLE: INITIATIVE, REFERENDUM, RECALL PETITIONS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) RAMRAS
02/08/06 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/08/06 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
03/09/06 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/09/06 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
03/14/06 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/14/06 (H) Heard & Held
03/14/06 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/16/06 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 45
SHORT TITLE: CONTRIBUTIONS, LOBBYISTS, DISCLOSURE
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) WEYHRAUCH
01/10/05 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 12/30/04
01/10/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/10/05 (H) STA, JUD
02/23/06 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/23/06 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/14/06 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/14/06 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/16/06 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
NANCY MANLY, Staff
to Representative Bob Lynn
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Made a suggestion during the hearing on HB
290, on behalf of Representative Lynn, sponsor.
DUANE BANNOCK, Director
Division of Motor Vehicles
Department of Administration
Anchorage, Alaska
said Representative Gruenberg addressed all the changes in his
review of Version Y.
MATTHEW KERR
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of himself in
opposition to HB 290.
ELIZABETH BARBARA BACHMEIER
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of herself in
opposition to HB 438.
MYRL THOMPSON
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of himself in
opposition to HB 438.
JOHN VINDUSKA
Palmer
Testified on behalf of himself in opposition to HB 438.
ROBIN McLEAN
Sutten, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of herself during the
hearing on HB 438.
MICHAEL MILLER
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testifying on behalf of himself during the
hearing on HB 438, addressed the issue of people outside of the
state funding petition efforts in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE BRUCE WEYHRAUCH
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 45 as sponsor.
BROOKE MILES, Executive Director
Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 45.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:13:42 AM. Representatives
Gatto, Elkins, Lynn, Gardner, and Gruenberg were present at the
call to order. Representative Ramras arrived as the meeting was
in progress.
HB 290-REQUIREMENTS FOR DRIVER'S LICENSE/I.D.
8:14:45 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the first order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 290, "An Act relating to issuance of
identification cards and to issuance of driver's licenses."
8:14:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 290, Version 24-LS0981\Y, Luckhaupt,
2/2/06, as a work draft.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected. He said he would first like
to hear an outline of the changes made in Version Y.
8:17:29 AM
NANCY MANLY, Staff to Representative Bob Lynn, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Lynn, sponsor,
suggested that the director of the Division of Motor Vehicles,
Duane Bannock, would best be able to review the changes.
8:17:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG reviewed the changes himself.
8:18:47 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked Mr. Bannock if there are any further changes
that would be brought about through Version Y.
8:18:55 AM
DUANE BANNOCK, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV),
Department of Administration, said Representative Gruenberg
covered all the changes in his review of Version Y.
8:19:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG removed his objection. There being no
further objection, Version Y was before the committee.
8:19:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN, as sponsor of HB 290, noted that a similar
bill was before the legislature during its previous session, and
many of the concerns raised at that time are still valid today.
He said the bill would require that anyone obtaining an Alaska
driver's license have a legal presence in Alaska, which
coincides with having a legal presence in the U.S.
Representative Lynn stated that President George W. Bush signed
into law the Real ID Act on May 11, 2005, the provisions of
which improve the security of state driver's licenses and
identification (ID) cards, which Representative Lynn posited is
a good idea. The proposed legislation, he said, is designed to
bring Alaska into compliance with "two major components" of the
Real ID Act. Applicants with a time-limited legal status may
not receive a driver's license or ID card that has an expiration
date later than the length of their allowable time in the U.S.
If the applicant's paperwork permits an indefinite length of
stay, he said, then the expiration date of the license would be
one year from the date of issue. Representative Lynn relayed
that the federal government has given Alaska the date of May 11,
2008, to come into compliance with the Act, but he stated his
belief that the seriousness of the issue deserves action before
that time.
8:21:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked what the consequence would be for
states that don't comply by the set date.
8:22:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said he doesn't know.
8:22:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if the Division of Motor Vehicles
has access to the appropriate documents to determine whether
someone issued a driver's license who is not a citizen has
reached the limit on the length of time he/she is allowed to be
in the state.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said he believes the division has access to
that information.
8:22:51 AM
CHAIR SEATON noted that there is no fiscal note in the bill
packet. He indicated that there would be a legal requirement
that the Division of Motor Vehicles determine the validity of
documentary evidence, and he questioned what type of liability
would be placed on the DMV employees if they "do not catch
documents that would not be legal."
8:24:03 AM
MR. BANNOCK expressed pleasure in being involved with HB 290.
He described the legislation as "a part of coming into
compliance with the federal Real ID Act." However, he stated
that not all of the details of the Act have been completed; the
federal rule-making committee is currently meeting to develop
"all of the minutia of this Act." Alaska has identified two
major components that are out of compliance, which HB 290
addresses. Mr. Bannock told the committee members that during
his testimony, he may use the term "driver's license" and mean
both driver's license and state issued identification cards.
MR. BANNOCK said the first part of the bill addresses the
issuance of a driver's license and the requirement that a person
receiving such a card must either be a citizen of the U.S. or
have documentation showing he/she is in the U.S. legally. The
second part of the bill addresses the group of people who are
not U.S. citizens but are here legally. A common example, he
said, is that of foreign exchange students who are in the state
on a student visa. The bill would allow the DMV the authority
to shorten the length of [the validity of] a driver's license to
coincide with the expiration of the documents that allow the
exchange student to remain in the country legally.
8:27:02 AM
MR. BANNOCK, regarding Representative Gardner's question about
compliance, said if Alaska is not in compliance with the Real ID
Act in time, the division will be required to mark a
nonconforming driver's license. As such, that identification
cannot be used to access a federal building and will not be
recognized as valid identification by the Transportation
Security Administration. By May 2008, a person without a
government issued ID that meets the federal requirements will
not be allowed to board an airplane.
MR. BANNOCK said when Governor Mike Huckabee stated that the
Real ID Act puts the Division of Motor Vehicles' employees on
the frontline of national defense, he meant that as an insult.
Mr. Bannock relayed that when he says the same thing he means it
as a compliment. Regarding Chair Seaton's questions related to
liability, he indicated that he does not know what liabilities
his employees may incur. Notwithstanding that, he emphasized
how seriously he takes the issue. He reported that his number
one manager of driver's licensing is a member on one of the
subcommittees of the federal rule-making committee. He said her
work involves foreign documents and "the second group of people
... that we're talking about."
MR. BANNOCK, regarding the technological advances being made in
order to comply with both the projected state law and the
implementation of the Real ID Act, stated that in his 2007
capital budget he has requested small desktop scanners to get
electronic copies of everyone's birth certificates. Mr. Bannock
talked about a grant given to the division to "connect with the
social security division" through a program called Social
Security On Line Verification (SSOLV). The program detects
mistakes and fraud related to social security numbers. Mr.
Bannock stated that as soon as the division has completely
implemented the SSOLV campaign, it will move into the next
electronic verification, called, Systematic Alien Verification
(SAV), which will allow the division to electronically verify
the validity of foreign passports. He predicted that technology
would be incorporated by the DMV by 2008.
8:32:28 AM
MR. BANNOCK, in response to a request for clarification from
Chair Seaton, stated his belief that the State of Alaska is
ultimately [liable] for anything his DMV employees do or don't
do. He offered an example of the benefit of using the
verification and storage process previously described.
CHAIR SEATON asked if Mr. Bannock would say that the requirement
that the documents be valid will be covered by making a copy of
the documents and keeping them in the DMV's records.
MR. BANNOCK answered, "That is one part of it, sir, yes, sir."
8:33:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER mentioned that there is something called
a Metricula Consular card, which is a type of fraudulent
government ID card. She asked Mr. Bannock if he is aware of any
other fraudulent card that should be included in the bill.
MR. BANNOCK answered no. He stated, "I'm not aware of any
nearly-as-broad documents that have been [widely] accepted by
other organizations." In response to a follow-up question from
Representative Gardner, he confirmed that he is familiar with
the Metricula Consular card.
8:34:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked, "If the purpose of this is to
deter terrorism, and you have an illegal alien, and they can't
get on the plane without a valid ID, how are they going to leave
the country?"
MR. BANNOCK deferred response to that question to "the Real ID
[Act] people."
8:35:22 AM
CHAIR SEATON, regarding Mr. Bannock's aforementioned statement
that those involved with the Real ID Act are currently meeting
to discuss the requirements of the Act, asked, "Do we have any
indication of what other portions might be required under the
issuance of these ID cards?"
8:35:38 AM
MR. BANNOCK answered yes. He indicated that some of the issues
being decided have to do with standardizations and layout of the
items listed on driver's licenses and IDs. In response to a
follow-up question from Chair Seaton asking if those decisions
will be made necessary through statute or regulation, Mr.
Bannock said they will be carried out through "some policy and
regulation." He stated, "Right now we know of no other
[statutorily] required changes other than what is before you."
8:36:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if there have been any court
challenges at the state or federal level regarding the
constitutionality of an illegal alien being unable to get a
driver's license.
8:37:28 AM
MR. BANNOCK answered that he is unaware of any such cases.
8:38:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained his concern is that there
have been challenges that state that children of illegal aliens
cannot get an education. He said he thinks those cases were
struck down on the grounds of equal protection. Barring an
illegal alien from getting a driver's license that may be
essential to his/her getting to a doctor, a school, or a job may
be a denial of equal protection.
8:38:34 AM
MR. BANNOCK replied that he cannot recall such a lawsuit. He
noted that the federal Real ID Act does allow for an option that
HB 290 does not take into consideration, and one which he said
he would do his best to discourage: the availability of a state
to issue a driver's license or ID that has not undergone the
same scrutiny as described previously. He offered his
understanding that the states of Utah and Virginia offer such a
license, but do not allow it to be used as a form of
identification. He said he knows of other states considering "a
second tier of driver licensing," but he emphasized that he
thinks that's poor public policy.
8:40:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his understanding that it is
actually the states of Utah and Tennessee that offer the special
driver's license, and the state of Virginia is considering the
option. He continued:
As I understand the basic concept of these laws, ...
if you are an illegal alien you can get a license, but
it will indicate on there clearly that this doesn't
meet the requirement of federal law, you're an illegal
alien, or something like that. Isn't that the basic
concept?
8:41:06 AM
MR. BANNOCK replied that that is an accurate statement.
8:41:17 AM
CHAIR SEATON said California has been wresting with the problem
of whether it is better to have [illegal aliens] take a driving
test to ensure they can read signs and drive safely, or whether
it is better to not have them come through the driver's license
system. He said, of course, if those illegal aliens are
conducting normal, everyday business, that means they are
currently driving without any license. He asked Mr. Bannock if
Alaska has experienced that problem.
8:42:11 AM
MR. BANNOCK answered that there are no documented cases of such
a problem. He continued:
The reason for my ability to make that statement is
that by regulation today - not by statute - ... we are
governed by what document we may or may not take. And
those documents are only [emphasis on the word "only"]
documents that would be in the possession of ...
person "A" - the United States citizen, [or] person
"B" - a person here legally.
8:42:46 AM
CHAIR SEATON recalled that during a previous hearing of the
bill, there had been discussion about people needing to come
from villages to renew their licenses. He stated, "And under
this bill, you wouldn't be able to issue a renewal without that
documentation, is that correct?"
MR. BANNOCK answered in the affirmative.
8:43:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if it is accurate to say that if a
person does not have a driver's license, he/she cannot get auto
insurance.
MR. BANNOCK answered that that is conventional wisdom, but he
said he doesn't want to speak on behalf of the insurance
industry.
8:43:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that a person doesn't have
to have a driver's license to purchase auto insurance. For
example, a person may own a car, but have a chauffeur do the
driving.
8:44:23 AM
MR. BANNOCK, in response to a remark by Chair Seaton, said he
would bring the committee a fiscal note.
8:44:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG told Mr. Bannock that he would like to
see the fiscal note broken down into component parts. He said
he would also like to know any potential for federal funding
related to the Real ID Act and how long those funds would last.
8:45:31 AM
MR. BANNOCK said the fiscal note will be $20,000. He stated
that although the fiscal note will show that there may be other
costs resulting from the Real ID Act, it will only be specific
to the programming changes related to HB 290.
CHAIR SEATON asked, "And it won't involve the training that's
going to be required to ... ensure validity on the document?"
MR. BANNOCK answered that's correct.
CHAIR SEATON asked Mr. Bannock to show that exception in the
fiscal note.
8:46:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would like to know "everything
you know that's going to be involved in the implementation of
this Act so we can really look at this systemically."
8:46:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if there is a specific action that a
DMV employee takes if he/she receives an application that looks
like it has been forged.
MR. BANNOCK answered yes.
8:47:11 AM
MATTHEW KERR testified on behalf of himself in opposition to HB
290. His written testimony read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
My name is Matthew Kerr and I am a small business
owner from Anchorage here representing myself. With
all due respect to Representative Lynn, I am here to
state my strong opposition to HB 290, which would
require more paperwork and bureaucracy to issue
driver's licenses in Alaska.
This bill has no benefit to our Great State or its
residents. It's the worst of government for its own
sake. This adds a useless paperwork burden to our
residents, our foreign guests, and our DMV. I
shouldn't need to remind you that the terrorists had
perfectly valid foreign passports and US visas when
they boarded the airplanes. This bill does not provide
one single benefit to the residents of this state for
all the money it would cost.
The first obvious problem with this bill is the cost
and difficulty involved in training our DMV agents to
be immigration officers. If someone has an expired F-1
student visa, an I-94 entry form marked valid for
"Duration of Status" instead of a particular end date,
and an I-20 form indicating current enrollment at UAA,
could you tell me if they are legally entitled to be
here, and for how long? What about someone who renewed
their passport while in the US, and no longer has
their original visa? Under the proposed rules, a
friend of mine would have needed to return to the DMV
four times in the past five years to renew their
license each time. Immigration paperwork can be
extremely complex, and we shouldn't be wasting money
to train our DMV agents on the finer points of
immigration law.
Second, a driver's license or identification card
should be exactly that. A person's ability to drive
legally has no logical connection to their immigration
status. If I was a foreign visitor, I would skip the
trouble, ignore the law, and just continue to use my
foreign license for the full length of my stay,
instead of obtaining an Alaska license after 90 days.
This means that we actually lose the ability to fully
maintain that person's driving record. In terms of
identification, foreign passports are accepted just as
widely as a state ID card.
The only argument I have heard in favor of this bill
is that our Alaska ID cards would possibly not be
enough to board an airplane. I don't believe that
aviation in Alaska would suddenly cease to function
because of our driver's licenses. We should be
fighting this kind of federal mandate; not giving in
to it. Last Tuesday, New Hampshire passed NH House
Bill 1582 specifically prohibiting their DMV from
implementing these rules, calling them "repugnant to
Amendments 4 through 10 of the United States
Constitution." I agree with that assertion.
However, the strongest argument against this bill
cannot be quantified in financial figures and
statistics. People that live here strongly value their
privacy, and no Alaskan residents I know are in favor
of this bill or increasing the level of bureaucracy at
our DMV. This is a slight but unnecessary encroachment
on my privacy and yours. I don't want to be asked for
more papers when I go to renew my license. The current
system isn't broken. Nobody wants this bill, and it
has no benefits for us. It honestly disappoints me
that a state that rightly prides itself so highly on
personal rights could attempt to pass this
legislation.
Thank you for listening to my testimony. Please vote
against this legislation.
8:50:48 AM
MR. KERR, in response to questions from Representative Gatto,
described the documentation he had to present to obtain his
student identification card. He said the first time he
registered was in 1992, and he does not recall being asked for
his driver's license. He agreed that it is conceivable that he
could have registered without proving he was whom he said, but
that the university's regulations could have changed since 1992.
8:52:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked for a copy of Mr. Kerr's written
testimony.
8:52:21 AM
MR. KERR, in response to a question from Representative Gatto,
confirmed that he is testifying on behalf of himself; however,
he said he travels internationally frequently and has many
friends in Alaska and outside the state. In response to a
follow-up question from Representative Gatto, he listed some of
the reasons that spurred him to testify, including the DMV
requirement to maintain a copy of a scanned birth certificate in
a database. He said he is a database programmer, and the
thought of that information being there scares him a little bit.
He said one of the requirements of the Real ID Act is that all
50 states have direct electronic access to the state DMV
records. Mr. Kerr said he can easily imagine a disgruntled DMV
employee somewhere in Southern California getting ready to quit
and deciding to do "a dump of the Alaska records and sell them
on the Internet." He said he is sure the state has good
security, but no system is perfect. The more information that
is out there, the more tempting a target the system becomes, he
concluded.
8:53:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said even though he disagrees with Mr. Kerr,
he thinks it is helpful to hear both sides of the issue.
8:54:42 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked Mr. Bannock if people will have to submit the
aforementioned documents upon renewing a driver's license.
MR. BANNOCK indicated that Version Y would require documentation
for renewals. He said, "We are attempting to develop a program
right now that if we can verify with the data that we already
have, when Representative Paul Seaton shows up at his Homer DMV
to renew his driver's license, he will not be required to do
that. That is one of the yet unanswered questions of the
application by 2008."
8:55:56 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that HB 290 was heard and held.
HB 438-INITIATIVE, REFERENDUM, RECALL PETITIONS
8:56:18 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the next order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 438, "An Act relating to initiative, referendum, and
recall petitions; and providing for an effective date."
8:57:13 AM
ELIZABETH BARBARA BACHMEIER, testifying on behalf of herself in
opposition to HB 438, told the committee that she has a Master's
degree in Government. She paraphrased her written testimony,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
In consideration of the current situation in Alaska
and my analysis of this bill, I believe that this is
unnecessary legislation. Current procedures are not
broken; they do not need to be fixed. Please apply
your attention to matters that need your focused
attention, consideration, and action.
I have worked as a paid signature gatherer in Alaska
on a number of petitions. I am delighted to do this
work as it causes me to feel that I am participating
in democracy and the qualitative improvement of our
state. As a retired military officer and former high
school teacher, this activity now allows me to
participate at the grass-roots level in democratic
principles that I hold dear and that keep our state
strong. I like that. Please don't make it more
difficult for me and others to participate in this
way.
8:59:19 AM
The following are four specific areas that I find
objectionable in this proposed legislation (24-
LS1344\L, dated 2/8/06):
1) As discussed on pages 6 line 22 and 10 line 9,
there is no need to increase the percentage of
qualified voter signatures in order to determine that
an initiative, a referendum, or a recall petition has
been successful and may appear on an appropriate
ballot. Qualified signatures from ten percent of those
who voted in the preceding general election comprise a
fair sampling of the population. It is important to
note that the matter is not finally decided by 10% of
the voters; this simply allows the issue to come
before all voters on the next voting occasion. This is
perfectly fine.
2) I also disagree with setting the maximum rate of
meals reimbursement, shown on pages 2 line 2, 4 line
13, and 8 line 6, at only $15.00 for circulators who
travel 100 miles or more from their home communities.
This figure is unreasonably low and there is no need
to address it in this way.
But, for the record, I taught school near Bethel;
$15.00 there might buy somebody breakfast, but
certainly not lunch and dinner, too. I was a
circulator in Fairbanks and had meals at the hotel
where I stayed; dinner each night was always over
$15.00. If this reimbursement must be addressed, and I
don't believe it should be, I recommend the federal
per diem rate. In May, legislators will get $200.00
per day for food and lodging in Juneau during the
session. If this must be addressed, why not make the
circulator's meals reimbursement equal to the federal
per diem rate that you receive when you are away from
your homes and staying here?
3) While I was in Fairbanks, I was asked to perform
some organizing duties in addition to my signature
gathering; I specifically provided circulator
training, distributed signature books, collected
completed ones, and other duties. I can see no reason
to disallow this occasional additional duty as is
discussed on pages 2 line 12, 4 line 23, and 8 line
16. Disallowing the activities I have described
increases the cost of the initiative, referendum, and
recall process. This is not good for democracy or
Alaska.
4) One final important point is the fiscal note that
must be associated with this bill. The bill speaks of
fees or fines charged to organizations, organizers, or
circulators as punishment for infractions or
violations to prohibited practices; how are these
fines levied, collected, and accounted for? How will
these enforcement operations be funded? There is also
a new form that is proposed here and that would need
to be created and managed. Do we need to spend the
State's money in this way? No.
The current initiative, referendum, and recall process
works just fine.
There is no reason to change it. Do not pass this
proposed legislation.
There are other topics that need your time and
attention. This bill seems to make much more difficult
the people's right to participate in state and local
government. And, this change would be very wrong.
Thank you for allowing me to testify against HB 438.
Again, as a person experienced in this work, I believe
that changes to the process proposed in this
legislation are unnecessary and counter to democracy.
9:03:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked for Ms. Bachmeier's testimony in
writing.
9:03:45 AM
MS. BACHMEIER, in response to a series of questions from
Representative Ramras, offered her understanding that there is
presently no per diem given for meals, but "it is a negotiable
item," which "probably would vary, depending on location." She
said when she worked on an initiative by Representative Ramras
she was not reimbursed for meals; however, she has been
reimbursed for meals while working on other initiatives - too
many to list separately.
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS asked, "Do you understand that it's
illegal to take additional money - more than a dollar per
signature - as a reimbursable item?"
MS. BACHMEIER replied, "I don't understand that to be the case.
I did point this out to you, however, in Fairbanks, when we
spoke."
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS said, "Which is why we didn't offer any
incentives like that, because they're illegal." He described
Ms. Bachmeier as a thoughtful, articulate person, and said that
he has a great deal of respect for her, even if her views differ
from his own.
MS. BACHMEIER, in response to questions from Representative
Ramras, said she received a flat fee for "those tasks that I
mentioned: training others in the legal requirements, passing
out booklets that were needed, and collecting notarized ones."
She said one of those initiatives had to do with "same-day
airborne shooting." She said she has lived in Alaska just over
a decade.
9:07:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS asked Ms. Bachmeier if she thinks it's
appropriate for non-Alaska residents with "multiple voter IDs
from multiple states" to come to Alaska to participate in the
initiative process.
MS. BACHMEIER said she has not heard of such a situation, but
she indicated that she does not think such a thing would be
appropriate.
9:08:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS asked Ms. Bachmeier if she can appreciate
that the intent of the bill, as it relates to signature
gatherers, is to protect Alaskans.
9:08:31 AM
CHAIR SEATON said he would like the sponsor to focus on
questions unrelated to the intent of the bill, because he said
he doesn't think anyone is challenging that intent.
MS. BACHMEIER stated, "Right, and I don't find it protective, so
I was going to disagree with the initial premise."
9:09:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG observed that Representative Ramras,
[during his questions to Ms. Bachmeier], was focusing on Section
1 of the bill, related to the qualifications of the people who
gather the signatures. He said Ms. Bachmeier has expertise [in
collecting signatures].
MS. BACHMEIER, in response to questions from Representative
Gruenberg, offered her understanding that although she does not
[circulate petitions] as her sole means of income, there are
others who do, and she said although there may be administrators
from out of state, she has never met another circulator working
in Alaska who is not an Alaskan.
9:11:43 AM
MYRL THOMPSON, testifying on behalf of himself in opposition to
HB 438, reminded the committee that he was the chair of the
successful Ogan Is So Gone recall effort. He shared an anecdote
related to initiatives, recalls, and referendums.
9:14:00 AM
MR. THOMPSON stated that there is absolutely no need for HB 438,
because the current system works well. He reviewed the recall
process that was used during the Ogan is So Gone recall, stating
that he hopes he never has to go through the grueling process
again in his lifetime. He said the process was started 13-14
months before the end of the term of the particular legislator,
and a number of months passed before the recall group could get
answers to its questions from the Division of Elections on how
to proceed. At that point, if a recall petition is approved,
then it must be circulated for another round of signatures, he
said - up to 25 percent of the people who voted. He offered
other details related to the Ogan Is So Gone recall experience.
MR. THOMPSON said that no matter how thorough a recall process
is, there are still factors that slow it down. For example,
some of the signatures are rejected because people change
addresses. He talked about a court challenge, whereby
Representative Ogan challenged the criterion for the recall. He
stated, "I think that you should probably pull ... the summary
of that case, because what they said was that ... those four
criterion were actually good enough - ... they don't have to be
more specific than that." Mr. Thompson said the definitions
that are proposed [in HB 438] seem to "bring this up to almost a
criminal level," by requiring proof that is almost impossible to
get. He concluded by reiterating that there is no provision in
the bill that needs to be adopted; the system works well as is.
9:20:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS directed attention to page 5, lines 1-10,
which define the terms "corruption", "incompetence", "lack of
fitness", and "neglect of duties". He asked Mr. Thompson for
his feedback on the definitions.
9:21:07 AM
MR. THOMPSON answered, "I feel that they weren't given a
definition on purpose." He explained that the courts already
said the hurdles don't need to be made any higher than they
already are, and the definitions in bill would make the recall
process more difficult.
9:22:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if Mr. Thompson and Ms. Bachmeier
have suggestions on how the legislature could improve the law.
9:23:03 AM
MR. THOMPSON, regarding the recalls, reiterated that the present
system works well. He said there has only been one recall in
the history of the state, and he said he thinks "that speaks
volumes."
9:23:30 AM
MS. BACHMEIER concurred with the remarks of Mr. Thompson that
the current system is a good one, and she said she sees no
reason to invest energy or funds in making unnecessary changes.
9:23:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked what percentage of signatures in
the Ogan Is So Gone recall process was discarded.
9:24:05 AM
MR. THOMPSON estimated 30 percent, but said that number could
have been higher. In response to a follow-up question, he
indicated that the rejected signatures happened in "both
instances" when signatures were collected, even when extreme
attention to detail was given.
9:24:50 AM
MR. THOMPSON, in response to questions from Representative
Gatto, said there were three people, plus himself as chair, who
made up the recall committee. In response to a follow-up
question from Representative Gatto, he said he took his job as
chair seriously.
9:26:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO offered his understanding that there were
some activities during the Ogan Is So Gone recall process that
were borderline illegal. He asked Mr. Thompson if, as chair, he
would feel it was his responsibility to encourage people engaged
in those activities to cease.
9:27:40 AM
MR. THOMPSON answered absolutely. He emphasized that if he had
thought that anybody connected even in the most remote way to a
recall was carrying on with such behavior he would have done
everything he could to [stop] it. He assured Representative
Gatto that no one involved with the Ogan Is So Gone recall had
anything to do with borderline illegal activities, if they
indeed happened.
9:29:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO referred to the proposal in the bill to
raise the 10 percent to 20 percent, and he asked Mr. Thompson
how significant an increase that would be and if it would have
affected the ability of Mr. Thompson's group to have effected a
recall.
MR. THOMPSON said the higher percentage would have made it more
difficult for the Ogan Is So Gone recall. He said a requirement
for 20 percent would result in a significant increase in time,
effort, and cost on the part of gatherers having to obtain the
increase in required signatures, and it would translate into
more time and money for the Division of Elections, because it
would have to hire people to count those signatures.
Furthermore, he said, it would also increase the amount of money
that has to be paid by the initiative groups that pay $1 per
signature.
9:29:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked Mr. Thompson if he agrees that it
would be the right of citizens to say that they don't need a
reason for a recall, only signatures.
9:30:23 AM
MR. THOMPSON responded, "I support the system that we have
currently in place; I don't think that it needs to be lessened
or made harder."
9:30:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Mr. Thompson, "You had to
ultimately get 25 percent of what?"
9:31:11 AM
MR. THOMPSON answered [25 percent] of registered voters in the
district [before the recall could get on the ballot].
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Mr. Thompson if he thinks 25
percent is too high.
MR. THOMPSON said that is a reasonable amount - not too low or
too high. He added, "All you're doing ... at that point is
getting it to where it can go before the vote of the people, and
that's a substantial number." In response to a follow-up
question from Representative Gruenberg, he said the Ogan Is So
Gone recall signature gatherers were able to reach that number.
9:31:46 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked Mr. Thompson whether that is 25 percent of
the number of people who voted in the last election, or if it is
25 percent of the total registered voters.
9:32:05 AM
MR. THOMPSON indicated that, "to be safe," the Ogan Is So Gone
group "went with ... the vote in the last election."
9:32:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said she thinks it's important to
distinguish that "it doesn't have to be 25 percent of the same
individuals, but 25 percent of the number of people."
9:32:47 AM
MR. THOMPSON responded, "I believe that's the case, because they
went through the Division of Elections' result on the number of
people that -- actually there was some contention between
ballots cast and voters, which ... did make it a little more
difficult also. That changed the numbers somewhat."
9:33:12 AM
JOHN VINDUSKA testified on behalf of himself in opposition to HB
438. He said he was a signature gatherer during the Ogan Is So
Gone recall and because of that experience he knows how
difficult it is currently to recall a person. He stated, "It's
a very hard process, and I don't believe people are going to
recall someone just because of policy difference." He stated
his belief that with the current corruption in government, there
needs to be a mechanism for people to be able to do recalls. He
echoed Mr. Thompson's statement that the Ogan Is So Gone recall
is the only successful recall in the history of Alaska, thus, he
said he doesn't think people will "be doing this frivolously."
He remarked that everything he needed to say Mr. Thompson has
already covered, other than the fact that if HB 438 is enacted
it will send the wrong message to people by making the bar so
high there is no way to get anyone out of office "unless ...
they murder someone or something like that." He expressed his
support for the status quo and reiterated his opposition to the
bill.
9:36:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if there are particular parts of the
bill that are glaringly in need of being remedied.
9:36:49 AM
MR. VINDUSKA replied that the most glaring issue is the proposal
to raise the number of signatures required. He said people have
to collect signatures within the district of the person being
recalled, adding, "Everything is geared to give the
representative the benefit of the doubt." He indicated that the
bill would squelch future efforts.
9:38:23 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked Mr. Vinduska to confirm that the
interpretation he got from the Division of Elections was that a
signature gatherer could not collect the signature of a person
from the district of the public official being recalled, unless
the person was physically in the district at the time he/she
signed the petition.
MR. VINDUSKA answered in the affirmative. He offered further
details.
9:39:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS announced his intention as sponsor to
delete much of the language regarding percentage [increases].
He explained that the bill was intended primarily to address
cheating in the initiative process. He asked future testifiers
to give him a chance to create a committee substance to "take
all that into account."
9:40:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said the issue of having to collect
signatures while within district boundaries may be a technical
point to review.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said she has been pouring through statute
and doesn't see any reference to a requirement that the
signatures have to be collected within the district - only that
they must be collected from people who are registered to vote in
the district.
9:41:13 AM
CHAIR SEATON said the committee would seek clarification on the
issue from the Division of Elections.
9:41:28 AM
ROBIN McLEAN, testifying on behalf of herself, relayed her
involvement with the Ogan Is So Gone recall. She confirmed,
"The Division of Elections did require us to collect signatures
in this very massive district only, which I think was a judgment
call of the Division of Elections." She explained that instead
of being able to collect signatures from a major store where
everyone shopped, the signature gatherers had to collect the
signatures in rural areas. Regarding the previous comments of
[Representative Gatto] regarding the activities reported during
the Ogan Is So Gone recall, Ms. McLean said she thinks the
people involved in that recall were careful to behave in a
professional way and were not involved in any of those
activities. She said she would like a law in place [allowing
petitioners to gather the signatures of people from a district,
no matter if those people are in the district at the time they
sign the petition. She explained the reason she would like to
see such a law codified is because, for example, in Anchorage
many people don't even know where the district lines are.
MS. McLEAN said she feels the current process for recalls is a
fair one. She stated that it is not only a citizen's right, but
also his/her duty, to conduct recalls. She noted that those who
worked on the Ogan Is So Gone recall effort did so without
reimbursement, because they believed deeply in the cause. She
added, "Although I believe that's probably the best way, I think
that with initiatives and referendums, that's pretty much
impossible with the time constraint." She concluded, "I do
understand the need to feel that these signature gatherers are
... valid signature gatherers; however, I do very strongly feel
that the emphasis should be more on giving citizens the right to
sign one of these petitions [than] on the people gathering
them."
9:45:48 AM
MICHAEL MILLER, testifying on behalf of himself, addressed the
previously stated concern regarding people outside of the state
funding petition efforts in Alaska. He stated that, outside of
never having witnessed that himself, he wanted to note that an
initiative, [referendum], or recall cannot happen without
citizens actively wanting it to happen. He explained that
people aren't paid to sign - they do so because they believe in
the cause. Furthermore, the issues still have to go through a
voting process following the signing. He said he doesn't see
the purpose of HB 438, unless it's to make the process easier.
He stated that the process definitely does not need to be made
more difficult, "because there is just not a situation in this
state where our government and way of life is being disrupted by
people ... swarming in and changing our laws - that's not
happening."
9:47:45 AM
CHAIR SEATON, after ascertaining that there was no one else to
testify, closed public testimony.
9:48:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed his interest in helping to
figure out the previously discussed issue regarding where
signatures may be collected. He offered his understanding that
AS 15.45.580 dealt with this issue.
9:48:48 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that HB 438 was heard and held.
HB 45-CONTRIBUTIONS, LOBBYISTS, DISCLOSURE
9:49:00 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the last order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 45, "An Act amending the definition of the term
'lobbyist' in the Regulation of Lobbying Act; and providing for
an effective date."
9:49:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BRUCE WEYHRAUCH, Alaska State Legislature,
presented HB 45, as sponsor. He noted that the bill is
substantially similar to an initiative that will be on the
ballot August 2006, with some differences.
9:50:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS), Version 24-LS0312\F, Wayne, 3/10/06, as a work
draft. There being no objection, Version F was before the
committee.
9:50:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH said [Version F] would tighten
recording requirements, effecting the amount of contributions
that must be reported, and would reduce the number of hours that
someone must register as a lobbyist from 40, back to 10. In
response to a question from Chair Seaton, he identified the
differences between the initiative and the bill. First, he said
that the initiative has an effective date of 2005, while the
proposed bill has an effective date of 2007. Next, he referred
to page 2, beginning on line 20, which is language defining the
meaning of "lobbyist", which read as follows:
(B) engages in the influencing of
legislative or administrative action as a business,
occupation, or profession.
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH noted that the original language of the
initiative read: "represents oneself as engaging in the
influence". He said that language presents problems to the
Alaska Public Office Commission (APOC) because many times there
are lobbyists who do not represent themselves as engaging in the
practice of lobbying - they don't identify themselves.
Representative Weyhrauch stated that the language in Version F
is "a clear distinction and a better definition for purposes of
... administering the law."
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH indicated that adopting HB 45 would
mean not allowing the initiative on the ballot. He said he
respects Representative Harry Crawford, the sponsor of the
initiative, and they have agreed to disagree. He stated, "I
don't like the idea that ... the legislature goes back and
changes something once you adopt it, simply to be tricky about
getting an initiative off the ballot, so I would absolutely
oppose, as an official in the legislature, any changes to this
once we do it."
9:53:07 AM
CHAIR SEATON offered his understanding that an initiative that
is adopted cannot be changed for two years, but a law can be
changed after one year, and Representative Weyhrauch is saying
it is not his intent to change the law any sooner than if the
initiative had passed.
9:53:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH confirmed that is correct.
9:54:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH, in response to a request for
clarification from Representative Elkins, explained his previous
comments regarding page 2, line 20.
9:54:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS said he thinks some of the community
delegations that come to Juneau spend more than 10 hours
[lobbying] in a 30-day period.
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH said that is a policy distinction in
the bill that is up for debate.
9:55:20 AM
CHAIR SEATON offered his understanding that the hours counted
towards lobbying have to do with active meeting time with
legislators, excluding any public testimony.
9:55:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS reiterated that a recent delegation from
Ketchikan spent more than 10 hours.
9:55:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH said historically people have to
register as lobbyists and fill out a form.
9:56:02 AM
CHAIR SEATON echoed Representative Weyhrauch's statement that it
will be the policy call of the committee to decide the time
limit.
9:56:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH said he thinks the rule before was four
hours in a 30-day period, so the proposed legislation is more of
a relaxed standard than it historically was.
9:56:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER brought attention to the difference
between [subparagraphs (A) and (B), in paragraph (10)] of
Section 4. She said [subparagraph (B), text provided
previously] relates to lobbyists who do their work as a
"business, occupation, or profession." [Subparagraph (A)], she
said, "is when they do it for payment." [Subparagraph (A) read
as follows:]
(A) is employed and receives payments,
or who contracts for economic consideration, including
reimbursement for reasonable travel and living
expenses, to communicate directly or through the
person's agents with any public official for the
purpose of influencing legislation or administrative
action for more than 10 hours in any 30-day period in
one calendar year; or
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said, "So, a citizen who comes down to
lobby, or somebody who is a teacher who comes down to lobby for
education, is not doing it as part of their profession,
business, or occupation; they're citizens lobbying for
something, and they wouldn't have to register as lobbyists."
9:56:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH suggested that the committee obtain the
input of the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC).
9:57:21 AM
BROOKE MILES, Executive Director, Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC), stated that the commission has a neutral
position regarding HB 45. Furthermore, she said that if HB 45
passes, it will have no fiscal impact on APOC.
9:58:35 AM
MS. MILES, in response to a question from Representative
Gardner, stated that elected or appointed municipal officials or
employees are exempt from the lobbying law; they never are
required to register and report. Individuals hired to represent
a municipality are required to register and report the payment
amount.
9:59:55 AM
MS. MILES, in response to a question from Chair Seaton, stated
that when employee lobbyists come to Juneau to testify, "under
this law they would be subject to the 10-hour test."
10:00:20 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if that applies to a fisherman who is self-
employed and lobbies on his own behalf regarding a fishing bill.
10:00:46 AM
MS. MILES responded that an individual who is the sole
proprietor of a business or a closely held corporation whose
only officers are married partners, for example, has not in the
past been required to register and report as a lobbyist. She
proffered:
You have a good example with Mr. Myrl Thompson, this
year and last year, who covers all of ... [his] own
expenses to be in Juneau and works with the process,
and testifies, and frequently would ask for meetings
with legislators or staff in efforts to influence
legislative action. But no one is paying ... [him].
That's how we see the person who's representing her or
his own business.
MS. MILES, in response to a follow-up question, said Mr.
Thompson is not considered a lobbyist and, thus, does not have
to register, because he is not receiving payments from a third
party.
CHAIR SEATON asked if that is clear in statute.
MS MILES answered, "It is in the exemptions section of the
statute, which is not part of this bill. But it is clear and
has been part of that statute since 1976."
10:02:36 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if Ms. Miles if she had any other suggestions
for changes that need to be made to avoid confusion.
10:02:45 AM
MS. MILES answered no. For the committee's information, she
noted that there is another type of lobbyist called a
representational lobbyist. She said, "That can cover a person
who is not employed by or under contract for a fee by the entity
that she or he is attempting to influence legislative action on,
but the entity covers their expenses." She said those
individuals are required to file a registration and make public
that they are there representing another party, but they are not
required to file lobbyist reports and are not subject to the
restrictions on fundraising and participating in the political
process that paid lobbyists are, because they are not really
considered to be paid. The person, company, or entity that
reimburses this person's expenses files a quarterly report
disclosing all expenses connected with the person's activity.
Those expenses, she indicated, are limited to accommodations,
food, beverage, and travel. In response to Chair Seaton, she
said APOC thinks "it does provide a good protection for an
individual who participates almost as a volunteer with just
having their expenses covered in whole or in part, while still
giving the public the right to know who those people are who are
attempting to influence the public decision makers."
10:04:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if allowing someone [who has come to
Juneau to lobby] to use a spare bedroom would be considered
compensation.
10:05:05 AM
MS. MILES clarified, "The payment must come from the entity for
which the person is trying to influence the legislative action."
She offered her understanding that Representative Gatto's
example would be called a close economic association with a
lobbyist if the lobbyist was paid to come to town. She added,
"If it were a citizen lobbyist who comes to town, and you
permitted them to stay in your spare bedroom - although I can't
speak to the Legislative Ethics Law - it wouldn't be considered
compensation to the lobbyist."
10:05:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said she wants to clarify that Ms. Miles
is saying that if she owns a small business and comes to Juneau
specifically to lobby for legislation that may effect that
business, she would not have to register as a lobbyist; however,
if she were to send a paid employee to do the same on her
behalf, that employee would have to register as a lobbyist.
10:06:04 AM
MS. MILES answered yes, if that employee has met the 10-hour
test.
10:06:10 AM
CHAIR SEATON referred to Section 1, [subsection (b), which read
as follows]:
(b) Each group shall make a full report upon
a form prescribed by the commission, listing
CHAIR SEATON noted that one of the items reported would be
"contributions in excess of $100". He asked if this means
campaign contributions and, if so, if the contribution limit and
the reporting requirement apply to individual political
campaigns."
10:06:34 AM
MS. MILES outlined that Section 1 addresses reports by political
groups, which includes political parties and all varieties of
political action committees. She continued:
Before changes to the campaign disclosure law in 2003,
all campaign contributions that were received from a
contributor that were $100 or less were not identified
by name and address, but simply batched together on
each report. ... After the changes in 2003, each
contributor, regardless of the amount, was required to
be shown by name and address.
In Section 1, this reverses that ruling for groups
only, not for candidates. And in a way this would be
helpful to the commission, because one of the results
of that change in law - particularly with group
activity, and particularly with the groups that
operate on payroll, withholding, [and] check-off
programs, such as labor unions and some corporations -
is that ... we're getting these reports that can be
300-500 pages, ... showing weekly or biweekly 75-cent
contributions from the same individual, which as you
can imagine, requires a lot of staff time to enter
data into our database, making the information
available to the public. So, this would actually be
helpful to the commission.
10:08:43 AM
MS. MILES, in response to a request for clarification from Chair
Seaton, said this change in law would not affect the requirement
that each candidate provide a name and address for each
contribution. She added, "It is the same as the initiative."
10:09:38 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that HB 45 was heard and held.
10:10:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said the federal government is making
it necessary to carry a passport to go to Canada from Alaska,
and he said he wants to address the issue in a House Joint
Resolution to urge the federal government to be more realistic.
10:11:06 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked Representative Gruenberg to investigate an
issue related to "passport light," and he said he has no
objection to Representative Gruenberg's preparing such a
resolution to bring before the committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
10:11:42 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|