03/30/2006 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB45 | |
| SB249 | |
| HJR27 | |
| HB461 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 45 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 249 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HJR 27 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 461 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 30, 2006
8:06 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
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Max Gruenberg
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
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."
- MOVED CSHB 45(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 249(JUD)
"An Act relating to criminal justice information."
- MOVED SB 249 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 27
Urging the United States Congress to pass legislation amending
the Alaska Native Vietnam Veterans Allotment Act to allow
deserving veterans to obtain allotments of vacant land within
the State of Alaska; and to reopen and legislatively approve
allotments in the Tongass National Forest.
- MOVED CSHJR 27(MLV) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 461
"An Act relating to disclosure to the Alaska Public Offices
Commission of information about certain income received as
compensation for personal services by legislators, public
members of the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics, and
legislative directors subject to the provisions of law setting
standards of conduct for legislative branch officers and
employees; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
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
03/16/06 (H) Heard & Held
03/16/06 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/21/06 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/21/06 (H) Heard & Held
03/21/06 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/28/06 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/28/06 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/30/06 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: SB 249
SHORT TITLE: REPORTING BAIL AND RELEASE INFORMATION
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) FRENCH
01/23/06 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/23/06 (S) JUD
02/15/06 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
02/15/06 (S) Heard & Held
02/15/06 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/01/06 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
03/01/06 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/02/06 (S) JUD AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
03/02/06 (S) Moved CSSB 249(JUD) Out of Committee
03/02/06 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/03/06 (S) JUD RPT CS 5DP SAME TITLE
03/03/06 (S) DP: SEEKINS, FRENCH, GUESS, THERRIAULT,
HUGGINS
03/20/06 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/20/06 (S) VERSION: CSSB 249(JUD)
03/22/06 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/22/06 (H) STA, JUD
03/30/06 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HJR 27
SHORT TITLE: ALLOTMENTS FOR NATIVE VIETNAM VETERANS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) COGHILL
01/18/06 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/06 (H) MLV, STA
03/02/06 (H) MLV AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/02/06 (H) Moved CSHJR 27(MLV) Out of Committee
03/02/06 (H) MINUTE(MLV)
03/03/06 (H) MLV RPT CS(MLV) 4DP
03/03/06 (H) DP: THOMAS, ELKINS, DAHLSTROM, LYNN
03/21/06 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/21/06 (H) Heard & Held
03/21/06 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/30/06 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 461
SHORT TITLE: LEGISLATIVE DISCLOSURES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) GARDNER
02/13/06 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/13/06 (H) STA, JUD
03/30/06 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
TAMMY KEMPTON, Regulation of Lobbying
Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC)
Department of Administration
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Reviewed lobbying laws and answered
questions during the hearing on HB 45.
SENATOR HOLLIS FRENCH
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 249 as sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions as sponsor of HJR 27.
CAROL YEATMAN, Supervising Attorney
Native Allotment
Alaska Legal Services
Nome, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on
HJR 27.
CHARLES HUBBARD
Sterling, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of himself during the
hearing on HJR 27.
DEE HUBBARD
Sterling, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of herself during the
hearing on HJR 27.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:06:03 AM. Representatives
Elkins, Lynn, Gardner, and Seaton were present at the call to
order. Representatives Gatto and Ramras arrived as the meeting
was in progress.
8:07:00 AM
HB 45-CONTRIBUTIONS, LOBBYISTS, DISCLOSURE
8:07:07 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the first 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."
[Before the committee was CSHB 45, Version 24-LS0312\F, Wayne,
3/10/06.]
8:07:19 AM
CHAIR SEATON, after ascertaining that there was no one to
testify, closed public testimony.
8:08:22 AM
CHAIR SEATON moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 24LS0312\F.2,
Wayne, 3/27/06, which read as follows:
Page 1, line 1:
Delete "contribution limits, lobbyists, and
disclosure"
Insert "lobbyists and campaign disclosure"
Page 1, line 4, through page 3, line 10:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Section 1. AS 15.13.040(b) is amended to read:
(b) Except as provided in (l) of this section,
each group shall make a full report, by electronic
means upon a form prescribed by the commission,
listing
(1) the name and address of each officer
and director;
(2) the aggregate amount of all
contributions made to it;
(3) for contributions
(A) up to and including $250 in the
aggregate during a calendar year, the name, address,
[DATE,] and amount contributed by each contributor;
(B) [AND, FOR CONTRIBUTIONS] in excess of
$250 in the aggregate during a calendar year, the
contributor's name, address, principal occupation,
[AND] employer, and amount contributed [OF THE
CONTRIBUTOR]; and
(4) the date and amount of all
contributions made by it and all expenditures made,
incurred, or authorized by it.
* Sec. 2. AS 24.45.171(10) is amended to read:
(10) "lobbyist" means a person who
(A) engages in the business, occupation, or
profession of influencing legislative or
administrative action; or
(B) receives wages or other economic
consideration, including reimbursement of travel and
living expenses, to communicate directly with any
public official
(i) for the express purpose of influencing
legislative or administrative action; and
(ii) during more than 16 [40] hours in any
30-day period in one calendar year;"
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
8:08:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN objected for discussion purposes.
8:08:49 AM
CHAIR SEATON said Amendment 1 would do the following: require
that financial reports by groups be by electronic means on forms
prescribed by the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC);
change from 40 to 16 the hours that a person may lobby the
legislature in a 30-day period before having to register as a
lobbyist with APOC; and change the contribution reporting
requirements.
8:09:33 AM
CHAIR SEATON moved Amendment 1 to Amendment 1, labeled 24-
LS0312\F.3, Wayne, 3/29/06, which read as follows:
Page 1, lines 13 - 19, of Amendment F.2:
Delete all material and insert:
"(A) up to and including $100 in the
aggregate during a calendar year, the name, address,
date, and amount contributed by each contributor;
(B) in excess of $100 and up to and
including $250 in the aggregate during a calendar
year, the name, address, date, principal occupation,
and amount contributed by each contributor;
(C) [AND, FOR CONTRIBUTIONS] in excess of $250 in the
aggregate during a calendar year, the name, address,
principal occupation, [AND] employer, and amount
contributed by each [OF THE] contributor; and"
8:09:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN objected for discussion purposes.
8:10:16 AM
CHAIR SEATON spoke to Amendment 1 to Amendment 1. He reminded
the committee that HB 45 was offered as legislation
substantially similar to an initiative that will be on the
ballot. He said, "If we would have approved HB 45 ...
throughout the entire process, it would have eliminated the
initiative from the ballot." With the aforementioned
amendments, he said, the bill will not be substantially similar.
The change proposed in Amendment 1, to change the time period
from 40 hours to 16 hours, would mean that the lobbyist would
have two workdays in which to lobby. He opined that that is a
reasonable amount of time, whereas 40 hours is not. He said if
the initiative passes, it would amalgamate [subparagraphs] (B)
and (C) of Amendment 1 to Amendment 1, but would not delete
[subparagraph] (A). Therefore, there would still be reporting
of amounts from zero and $100 in the aggregate per year.
8:15:53 AM
CHAIR SEATON, in response to Representative Gatto, clarified:
If this passes and the initiative passes, the
initiative will take and supersede [subparagraphs] (B)
and (C), so that a group would have to report the
employer and his occupation for everything over $100,
but [subparagraph] (A), which is reporting only the
name, address, date, and the amount, would remain in
play.
8:16:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked what would be wrong with requiring all
the information for all the contributions.
8:16:43 AM
CHAIR SEATON explained that current law stipulates that a person
must report the information, but does not have to report the
occupation or employer until the amount of $150 is reached. He
said there is nothing in the amendment that would prevent
someone from reporting the additional information by choice, but
he/she would not be required to do so.
8:17:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN reiterated his question.
8:18:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER suggested that the reason not to require
the entire scope of information in all circumstances is that at
some point the requirement becomes too onerous. She said it
would be impractical to ask for all that information for every
nickel that is contributed.
CHAIR SEATON asked the committee to realize that HB 45 and the
aforementioned initiative address contributions to groups and do
not change the information required by candidates.
8:19:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS asked if there has been abuse regarding
this issue, because "this almost seems like additional
harassment."
8:19:27 AM
CHAIR SEATON told Representative Elkins that currently groups
are required to report "all the information" for every donation.
He said:
This will clarify and make it easier for [the Alaska
Public Offices Commission (APOC)], and yet there will
still be full reporting, even if the initiative
passes. The initiative currently is unclear as to
whether, since there's not another category of up to
$100, ... any reporting would be required under $100
by group. And so this makes it clear that the groups
would still be required to report the lesser amount of
information, but they would report that information.
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS questioned if the committee is taking the
bill in a different direction than the sponsor anticipates.
CHAIR SEATON said the bill sponsor has expressed his acceptance
of amendments to the bill.
8:21:31 AM
CHAIR SEATON, in response to a question from Representative
Gatto, said the amendment affects those groups that are
structured to support candidates and election positions and have
to report to APOC. Those organizations that are 501(3)(c),
[nonprofit], do not report to APOC.
8:22:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN removed his objection to Amendment 1 to
Amendment 1. There being no further objection, Amendment 1 to
Amendment 1 was adopted.
8:22:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER, regarding the time spent as a lobbyist,
said 16 hours of lobbying really equals more than two days. She
explained that that time is not the time spent in Juneau or in
the capitol building, but it is the amount of time spent face to
face with legislators. Therefore, 16 hours could be spread out
over four or five days.
8:23:17 AM
CHAIR SEATON said the 16 hours would allow people who frequently
come to Juneau for two days to not be concerned about keeping
track of their lobbying time. He reiterated his understanding
that testifying before a committee doesn't count towards
lobbying time. He invited a representative from APOC to testify
and confirm his understanding or correct it.
8:24:21 AM
TAMMY KEMPTON, Regulation of Lobbying, Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC), Department of Administration, stated:
With all due respect [Chair] Seaton, time spent
testifying does count towards the 16 hours, the 40
hours, or whatever it is. That's one of the biggest
misunderstandings in the lobbying law.
MS. KEMPTON referenced [AS 24.45.161(a)(1)(A) and (B)], which
read:
(a) This chapter does not apply to
(1) an individual
(A) who lobbies without payment of compensation
or other consideration and makes no disbursement or
expenditure for or on behalf of a public official to
influence legislative or administrative action other
than to pay the individual's reasonable personal
travel and living expenses; and
(B) who limits lobbying activities to appearances
before public sessions of the legislature, or its
committees or subcommittees, or to public hearings or
other public proceedings of state agencies;
MS. KEMPTON emphasized that the word "and" appears between
subparagraphs (A) and (B). She added that telephone time also
counts towards lobbying time.
CHAIR SEATON thanked Ms. Kempton for the clarification.
8:26:36 AM
MS. KEMPTON, in response to a question from Representative Lynn,
explained that if a person is only being reimbursed for
expenses, is not receiving a salary, and is not an employee for
the organization for which he/she is lobbying, then he/she is
called a representational lobbyist and must register before
beginning to lobby. The representational lobbyist does not have
to pay the $250 registration, file reports, or be subject to the
other prohibitions in terms of prohibitions and fundraising for
legislative campaigns. She said the organization reimbursing
the expenses of the representational lobbyist has to report the
reimbursements. In response to a follow-up question from
Representative Lynn, she said a lobbyist who was only being
reimbursed for his/her airfare would still be considered a
representational lobbyist.
8:28:19 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked where the lobbying law comes in to play.
8:28:32 AM
MS. KEMPTON said basically what APOC does is follow the money;
therefore, if there is no money changing hands, there is nothing
for APOC to follow and there is nothing to be reported.
Lobbyists don't report with whom they meet; they report how much
they are paid to meet with people and how much they spend.
8:29:25 AM
MS. KEMPTON, in response to a question from Representative
Gatto, said she herself is representing a state office and,
thus, is not acting as a lobbyist. She cited AS 24.45.161 as
being an exemption for state officials and employees who are
acting in the course of their duties. The same applies for
municipal employees and officials.
8:30:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked about the oil companies.
MS. KEMPTON responded, "The oil companies are probably the best
we have at registering and reporting; they are almost never a
problem. And if there should happen to be a mistake and they've
done something wrong, they immediately correct it."
8:30:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if lobbyist are allowed to round
numbers or must report time precisely.
8:31:08 AM
MS. KEMPTON replied that the reporting is done on the honor
system. She said she tells people if there is ever a complaint
filed she will ask for some sort of accounting; however, if the
person doesn't keep accounting, then APOC will have to ask
everyone with whom the lobbyist met to verify the meeting and
time involved.
8:31:51 AM
CHAIR SEATON offered his understanding that the hour requirement
had been 4 hours and was changed to 40. He asked Ms. Kempton
if, at the time of that change, there were a lot of people who
no longer registered.
8:32:18 AM
MS. KEMPTON answered that APOC did see a significant drop. The
year the number changed to 40 hours there were 213 registered
lobbyists. Before the oil companies started registering, there
were approximately 120 registered, and there are about 130 now.
8:32:45 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if the proposed change from 40 to 16 would
result in requiring most of those lobbying currently to register
with APOC.
8:33:05 AM
MS. KEMPTON answered yes. The drop was not in professional
lobbyists with multiple clients, but with part-time lobbyists
and attorneys.
8:34:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN removed his objection to Amendment 1, [as
amended]. There being no further objection, Amendment 1, as
amended, was adopted.
8:34:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER moved to report HB 45, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said he has no objection, but stated that
about three years ago he had objected strongly regarding raising
[individual] contributions to candidates from $500 to $1,000,
because he thought it put a chilling effect on the entire
process. He talked about the advantage that incumbents have
over other candidates.
8:36:30 AM
CHAIR SEATON, in response to a remark by Representative Lynn,
clarified that HB 45, [as amended], would not change any of the
[individual] contribution amounts to which Representative Lynn
had referred. He added, "But if an initiative later passes, it
would have [the effect of lowering the individual contribution
amounts.]"
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO observed that Representative Gardner had
made the motion to move the original bill out of committee
rather than Version F.
8:37:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER withdrew her motion to move HB 45 out of
committee.
8:38:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER moved to report CSHB 45, Version 24-
LS0312\F, Wayne, 3/10/06, as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, CSHB 45(STA) was reported out of the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
SB 249-REPORTING BAIL AND RELEASE INFORMATION
8:38:50 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the next order of business was CS
FOR SENATE BILL NO. 249(JUD), "An Act relating to criminal
justice information."
8:38:51 AM
SENATOR HOLLIS FRENCH, Alaska State Legislature, presented SB
249 as sponsor. He related a story to illustrate why the
proposed legislation is necessary as follows:
About a year ago, on the Summer Solstice, in my ...
neighborhood, there was a SWAT team shut down of the
neighborhood due to a domestic violence disturbance.
A former boyfriend of a woman that lived just around
the corner from my house had returned to that home,
had pulled a gun on her, [and] threatened her. She
called the police, and when the police arrived, he
fired a shot at the police. That of course caused a
major response from the Anchorage police department.
Neighbors were hustled out of their homes [and] the
street was cordoned off. Eight hours later,
thankfully, the system was defused without anyone
having been hurt, thanks to the good work of the
Anchorage Police Department.
... That person had been, of course, arrested, charged
with a crime, put in jail, and he'd bailed out of
jail. Two weeks later he shows up at the same house
again, and a neighbor sees him there and knows the
system well enough to know for a certainty that he was
not allowed to be back at that location; he had been
warned to stay away from there by the judge. She
called the police, a patrol officer showed up, and
when she told her story to the patrol officer, he went
back to his car, checked the computer, and came out
and said, "There's nothing I can do; there's nothing
in the computer that tells me that he's not allowed to
be there."
Well that, of course, caused her great consternation.
She called several people, including myself, and we
were able to get the situation straightened out
safely. But it really highlighted the lack of
communication, if you will, between the court system
and patrol officers. And that's the impetus behind
this fairly short and fairly simple bill.
SENATOR FRENCH said the idea is to provide a place in the Alaska
Public Safety Information Network (APSIN) to record bail
information. He explained that bail information frequently
prohibits individuals from doing things that are otherwise
lawful. He said, "It can prohibit you from driving a car, from
going to a certain place in a part of town, or even from
consuming alcohol in no matter how small amounts. And those are
things that police can't detect as being unlawful, unless they
know what the conditions of bail are."
SENATOR FRENCH credited the chair of the House Judiciary
Standing Committee for pointing out that conditions of parole
were not included. He said the bill comes with three fiscal
notes. He said, "It doesn't command that this information
suddenly be added, it just puts a place in the absent
architecture for the addition of that information, and future
efforts will be necessary to complete the link ... to provide
enough horse power to make that a reality."
8:41:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked what effect the bill would have on
the street if it were to pass right now unchanged.
8:42:09 AM
SENATOR FRENCH answered that the changes would not be apparent
over night; however, he said there are groups at work on the
issue, including "the magic group" in Anchorage, which is
comprised of people from the Alaska State Troopers, the
Department of Law, and the court system, including [information
technology (IT)] people from each. He noted that [the magic
group] is trying to find a way to "put this information out
...."
8:42:43 AM
CHAIR SEATON said he wants to clarify that this bill does not
mandate that "this immediately be done," but would provide
statutory framework.
SENATOR HOLLIS responded, "It's more permissive than mandatory,
yes ...."
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said SB 249 seems like common sense.
SENATOR FRENCH, in response to a question from Representative
Gardner, stated that there has been no opposition to SB 249.
8:43:52 AM
CHAIR SEATON, after ascertaining that there was no one else to
testify, closed public testimony.
8:44:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER moved to report CSSB 249(JUD) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSSB 249(JUD) was
reported out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
The committee took an at-ease from 8:45:33 AM to 8:47:27 AM.
HJR 27-ALLOTMENTS FOR NATIVE VIETNAM VETERANS
8:47:40 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the next order of business was HOUSE
JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 27, Urging the United States Congress to
pass legislation amending the Alaska Native Vietnam Veterans
Allotment Act to allow deserving veterans to obtain allotments
of vacant land within the State of Alaska; and to reopen and
legislatively approve allotments in the Tongass National Forest.
CHAIR SEATON highlighted several handouts new to the committee
packet.
8:49:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL, Alaska State Legislature, as
sponsor of HJR 27, referred to questions that were asked at the
previous hearing and directed attention to information from
Alaska Legal Services, which shows how [S. 2000 and H.R. 1811]
would amend the existing Alaska Native Vietnam Veterans
Allotment Act. Regarding the issue of whether or not heirs
would be allowed the allotment, he noted where the handout
explains that currently only those heirs of a veteran who died
in the Vietnam war or from war injuries would qualify, whereas
the amendments proposed by the aforementioned U.S. Congress
bills would allow an heir of any now deceased Vietnam Era
veteran to apply for an allotment.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said probably the biggest issue is in
regard to vacant federal lands. He noted that there is an
amendment in the committee packet that would target that issue.
He stated:
This resolution, which would encourage the passage of
H.R. 1811 and S. 2000, still does not address the
issue of the Tongass Forest .... We are asking them
to look at the [Shields v. United States, 698 F.2d 987
(9 Cir., 1983)] decision, but those two cases would
not deal with it.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL explained that vacant lands are those
that do not have any prior use; land with pipelines, gas lines,
roads, bridges, slips, or other improvements would not be
considered. He referred to a related portion of the previously
mentioned handout, which read: "Thus, veteran allotments would
be allowed in all national forests and national parks in
Alaska." He said he personally thinks "that's just fine that we
have 'inholdings' in some of our parks and preserves, and
national forests." He pointed out that many of those allotments
were set out before many parks were in existence. Furthermore,
he said, the Act went through at the same time that some of the
parks were being formed, and "there was an understanding that
they would be able to select out of those parks."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL suggested that Ms. Yeatman could speak to
the issue of the application process. He said, "Because in my
view I think that's a very steep ... deal. I don't think it
would be an easy thing for any of the possible 1,200 - I think
is what it amounts to - applications."
8:53:47 AM
CHAIR SEATON stated that the original allotment required either
usage or occupancy of those lands; therefore, there is a
significant difference between that which would have been
occupancy in an area that was designated as [a] park, and this
[resolution], which says that you can select land that you've
had no historical tie to at all. He continued:
And so, it seems to me that when we're talking about a
national park, there's a significant difference
between the previous allotment bill that said, ... "If
you've got this historic tie at usage or occupancy of
that land and this bill that's in there now that says
any park is fair game - or refuge. And I don't see
the monuments addressed in here, so, I'd like to get
it clarified.
8:54:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL responded as follows:
I agree that is part of the issue, but the tradeoff
for me ... is: there were a lot of lands that had no
improvements or limitations because of pipelines, et
cetera - the various different changes that really cut
ribbons through much of the land that would be
available. And again, they would have to be
legislatively approved, so they still have a pretty
high bar to get over in my view. But the tradeoff is
just that. Whereas before it had to be land that was
traditional use. But in many cases there [have] been
buildings, campsites, bridges, I mean all kinds of
things that have happened over the last century that
have really made that distinction very hard to follow
through. The fact that there [were] probably 40,000
allotments possible and now we're down to the last
1,200 possible, I don't think that the tradeoff is
that big of a deal. So, to me the policy call is I
would let them go ahead and make the selection.
8:56:16 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked Ms. Yeatman if those who applied for an
allotment but did not receive one could apply again.
8:56:59 AM
CAROL YEATMAN, Supervising attorney, Native Allotment, Alaska
Legal Services, answered yes. In response to a follow-up
question from Chair Seaton, she estimated that there would be
1,200 allotments available. Regarding whether national parks,
refuges, and forests are considered vacant federal land, she
began by saying that the original Act of 1906 had no use and
occupancy requirement. If people had known about the
opportunity, they could have picked land anywhere in the state,
with the only restriction against picking mineral land. The law
was changed in 1956, she said, and that's when use and occupancy
requirements were put in place. According to the legislative
history for that change, Ms. Yeatman said, the forest service
did not want Native allotments within national forests. When
U.S. Congress found out what that meant in terms of the cost in
time to adjudicate an allotment, it tried to change the law
again under Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act
(ANILCA) and gave legislative approval to the then pending
allotments.
MS. YEATMAN continued:
For the amendments, having legislative approval is
just giving the veterans the same opportunity the
people have under the current general allotment Act,
which is legislative approval. The land that's
available under the amendment is any vacant federal
land, and that means - similar to the original
Allotment Act - that any federal land that has nothing
on it is available for veterans' allotment.
And one of the problems that we've seen in the current
law [is] that most applications that were rejected
were rejected on the grounds that the land applied for
was not available because there were so many
restrictions in the Veterans Allotment Act as it
stands now. But under the amendments, national parks,
national forests, [and] national monuments would all
be available for veteran allotments, as long as there
was no interest such as a right of way easement or
gravel pit, pipeline, improvement, and so forth, or
anything that would make it not vacant.
9:00:44 AM
CHAIR SEATON directed attention to page 2 of the Alaska Legal
Services Corporation's handout, and the second bulleted point,
which read:
Veteran allotments will be allowed on all vacant
federal land. This means that all federal land will
be available for veteran allotments as long as it is
vacant. Vacant federal land is without buildings,
roads, bridges, existing and proposed pipelines,
existing and proposed rights-of-ways and easements,
designated campsites, boat launches, logging areas or
any improvements or proposed improvements that would
exclude land as not being vacant. In contrast, under
existing law most federal land is not available
because it is specifically excluded [all national
forest land is excluded] or it was withdrawn before
the veteran used it.
CHAIR SEATON asked what the limitation on a proposed easement or
improvement means. He asked, "What makes it either vacant or
not vacant?"
9:01:28 AM
MS. YEATMAN replied that what makes it vacant is if there is a
little marker showing that the land is going to be taken - that
it has been selected for a specific purpose - "anything that
would ... take an area off the market, so to speak." She said
additionally there are umbrella federal laws that would also
apply. For example, every allotment today has a reservation for
ditches, canals, "and so forth," and if the allotment is in an
area known to be an oil and gas area, then that also is reserved
from the allotment. She explained that that means the allotment
is certified, or there is a patent for it, but the allotment
owner does not get subsurface rights to oil and gas. She
indicated that there are also other restrictions.
9:02:53 AM
CHAIR SEATON noted that the legislation specifically exempts
from selection any Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) right-of-
way area, but does not exempt a natural gasoline/pipeline
corridor.
9:03:45 AM
MS. YEATMAN explained:
The reason the extension is specifically in the
amendment, or ... [H.R.] 1811 and S. 2000, is because
that was a concession to [the Alyeska Pipeline Service
Company (ALYESKA)]. ALYESKA reviewed the proposed
legislation to amend the [Alaska Native] Veterans
Allotment Act [of 1906] and they ... understood that
"vacant" meant land that wasn't the pipeline, but they
were so concerned about that that they asked us to
concede and just put and express exemption for the
pipeline. So, that's why that's in there. It's not
that anybody thinks that the pipeline would be vacant
land; it's just that to satisfy Alyeska's great
concern, we added that provision. But ... vacant
means vacant, and I don't even think that's a word
that lawyers would fight over very often. I think
that if there's a proposed pipeline route, or if
there's anything on the books, then that would take it
out of being vacant.
9:04:53 AM
CHAIR SEATON stated his concern:
We have, of course, a natural gas pipeline. ALYESKA
is concerned about their corridor enough that they
wanted to get specific exclusion under the law. And
we don't have that specific exclusion for the [gas]
pipeline corridor. And if we had a multitude, or even
a number, of private inholdings that could delay the
construction of a pipeline, then that would be
something very significant to our state. And so, I
want to make sure that what we're proposing - and I
understand this is only a resolution - but we are --
this is the State of Alaska asking the federal
government to do something, and I want to make sure
that we ask them for what we really want and not what
we don't want. And so, do we have court cases that
delineate ... when a proposed, or a thought of, or a
potential pipeline corridor becomes vacant?
9:06:37 AM
MS. YEATMAN answered no. She said Chair Seaton is expressing
the same serious concerns that ALYESKA expressed several years
ago "when we added that provision to specifically exempt the
pipeline." She suggested that the Alaska State Legislature
should ask U.S. Congress to add a provision that would satisfy
its concern.
9:08:02 AM
CHAIR SEATON stated a concern regarding trustees of state.
9:10:26 AM
MS. YEATMAN responded that fortunately for Chair Seaton's
concern, allotment law doesn't work quite the same as "other
properties and trustees, and so forth." There are no trustees
for an "allotment estate." Ms. Yeatman explained as follows:
A personal representative is appointed by a state
court; that's in federal regulation. The personal
representative has one duty, and that duty is to make
out the application - period. And that person has no
fiduciary duty as a trustee would under normal state
law. That's because it's the Bureau of Indian Affairs
that's the trustee for a person's estate and a
person's property. And that trusteeship ... doesn't
really kick in until the allotment is certified. So,
while a person is making application for an allotment,
whether that person is an heir or personal
representative, or both, there is no trustee ... [or]
fiduciary duty; there's only the authority under the
law to make an application. So, we don't have to
worry about a trustee picking a piece of property to
maximize the state, because that is not what that
personal representative's duty or authority is; it's
only to make application for an allotment. And
generally speaking, in the past, personal
representatives have been an heir - either a child of
a deceased veteran or a parent - and they generally
picked the land that they used for subsistence that
was near their village - just like everybody else did.
9:13:15 AM
CHAIR SEATON said he is relieved to hear that, because that
alleviates that concern. He mentioned an upcoming amendment
that would address the previously discussed pipeline.
9:13:58 AM
CHARLES HUBBARD, testifying on behalf of himself, referred to
his written testimony [included in the committee packet] and
said it obviously is not "the whole story." He said the end of
both H.R. 1811 and S. 2000 state that the Department of Interior
will have one year to establish regulations. He indicated that
the final rule published in 43 CFR 25.60, June 30, 2000,
involved a public testimony process. He said one of the
questions that came up was whether there is land owned by the
federal government that [the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)]
cannot convey to someone who qualifies. He continued:
Part of their answer is: Land presently selected but
not conveyed to the State of Alaska the state may
relinquish - up to 160. And obviously that would be a
process that would have to go through the state. So,
the concerns of people selecting lands that the state
has selected would be addressed if they would do that,
and it would be addressed with the state.
And it also says you cannot receive an allotment
containing any of the following: a regularly used,
recognized campsite that is primarily used by someone
other than yourself. In other words, public parks.
... Most parks have campsites and other things in them
that other people use.
These are the regulations that came out under 43 CFR
25.60. In the original [Veterans] Allotment Act, it
also addresses the fact that the allotment only had
surface rights - not subsurface rights, and it also
addresses pipeline, railroads, and other right of way
that they cannot restrict any of those type of
activity - the allotments cannot.
9:17:46 AM
DEE HUBBARD, testifying on behalf of herself, mentioned her e-
mailed testimony [included in the committee packet]. She
stated:
When I last checked with anyone in Washington D.C.,
the report that the [U.S.] Department of Interior was
supposed to have completed and sent to [U.S.] Congress
in 1999 cannot be found. I was told sometimes this
happens when a department really doesn't want to do a
report. So, the possibility of finding out how many
Alaska Natives might be affected by this is not
available.
The other item is in talking with [Cynthia] Ahwinona,
from Representative [Don] Young's office, she is
really hopeful that this resolution will get moving
and get passed, because she said she really needs it
back in D.C. to help with Representative Young's
legislation.
9:19:47 AM
CHAIR SEATON, after ascertaining that there was no one else to
testify, closed public testimony.
9:19:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, regarding an issue brought up by Ms.
Hubbard [in her written testimony] regarding conservation system
units, said Ms. Hubbard asserted that if there was land selected
within a conservation system unit that BLM would "go to find
land outside of that system." He said he would like
clarification on this issue from Ms. Yeatman.
9:20:28 AM
CHAIR SEATON read from Ms. Hubbard's testimony for the benefit
of Ms. Yeatman, who was testifying via teleconference and did
not have a copy.
9:21:22 AM
MS. YEATMAN said the conservation system unit (CSU) is in
existing law. She revealed that she was recently told by "two
fairly high BLM officials" that they "wished they had never put
that in the regulations." She continued:
It's in the federal regulations that apply to the
veteran allotments today; it's not in the amendment.
... Ms. Hubbard is right, in that the definition of a
conservation system unit is very broad; it covers
almost all federal land. And it gives the CSU manager
- that is the manager of that particular area, whether
it's a wildlife refuge or a park or whatever - ...
veto power over a veteran allotment. And I'll give
you a good example. I have a client that applied for
a veteran's allotment in a national park - St. Elias -
and he applied for the allotment of land that he's
used for many, many years. ... It's along the road,
there's an old mine, there's two airstrips, there's a
grocery store, there are two lodges, there are a
number of homestead cabins, and so forth -
recreational areas. It's a very well developed area,
and it's not far off the highway. The CSU manager
rejected his allotment on the grounds that it was
inconsistent with the purpose of the park, although it
was in an area that's highly developed.
So, the provision for CSU in the federal law today
allows the CSU manager - the park manager or a fairly
low-level employee - to reject an allotment. And when
that happens, the veteran then has to go and pick an
alternative sight. But as we've seen over and over,
one of the big problems with the Veterans Allotment
Act is there isn't any land available as it's defined
under current law. And so, if veterans are not
allowed to get allotments in a national park, or a
wildlife refuge, or a national forest, then we're
right back where we started from, and there isn't any
land left for them. They're going to be left out of
getting any land whatsoever, because that's all that's
left.
9:24:02 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if the provision that [Ms. Hubbard] is
talking about would be superseded by S. 2000 or H.R. 1811.
9:24:20 AM
MS. YEATMAN answered that's correct; [the provision] is in
current law, not in the proposed amendments in U.S. Congress.
Regarding Ms. Hubbard's remark that she was unable to obtain a
copy of a report to U.S. Congress that the U.S. Department of
Interior was supposed to have made, Ms. Yeatman stated her
understanding that Representative Coghill provided that
information to the committee.
9:25:08 AM
CHAIR SEATON said he would ask Representative Coghill to forward
that information to Ms. Hubbard.
9:25:52 AM
CHAIR SEATON moved to adopt Amendment 1, [found on two separate
pages], which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Page 2, following line 27:
Add a new clause to read:
"FURTHER RESOLVED that the United States Congress
is urged to prohibit the selection of allotments in a
national park, a national wildlife refuge, a national
monument, or the right-of-way for a proposed Alaska
natural gas pipeline; and be it"
Insert at page 2 line 25
WHEREAS, the policy of the United States of America
over the past several decades has been to acquire in-
holdings in our National Park, Refuge, and Monument
systems to provide a contiguous manageable entity; and
WHEREAS, acquisition by numerous private parties of
parcels that will be necessary for the right-of-way
and construction of the Alaska North Slope Natural Gas
Pipeline could complicate and delay the construction
of such a vital facility,
9:27:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS objected for discussion purposes.
9:27:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he disagrees with a majority of the
amendment, with the exception of the language related to the
right-of-way of a proposed natural gas pipeline. Closing down
national parks, refuges, and monuments, he said, would
effectively "slam the door on other selections," because the
land available then would be "minimal to nothing." He said he
doesn't have all the answers, but he said, "Even if the language
in Congress passes through, I can tell you the CSU management
would be a huge barrier anyway." He said he thinks the level of
scrutiny the allotments will get will be huge, because several
federal agencies will have to review them.
9:29:11 AM
CHAIR SEATON clarified that Amendment 1 includes national parks,
refuges, and monument systems, but does not include any of the
national forests, which are the largest portions of federal land
in Alaska.
9:29:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said that would be helpful in Southeast
and Southcentral Alaska, but not for the vast majority of
Alaska. He explained that Amendment 1 would make everything on
a river system in the interior or the northern region of Alaska
off limits.
9:29:47 AM
CHAIR SEATON said Amendment 1 would take out Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and Denali National Park. He asked what
else would be affected.
9:30:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL listed: Gates of the Arctic, Selawik
Refuge, and Porcupine River Refuge. He said he would have to
bring in a map to point out other areas. Notwithstanding that,
he stated other areas that would be affected would be: most of
Western Alaska, all of North Alaska, and most of Interior
Alaska. He concluded, "I think almost all federal land - maybe
with a few exceptions - [is] going to be within the description
of 'parks, refuges, or monuments.'"
9:30:44 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if taking refuges out of Amendment 1 would
"provide enough ... delineation."
9:31:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL replied, "There are some parks that are
probably more sensitive than others. I think Denali is probably
one that has gotten [the] most attention." He said several of
the parks and refuges in Northwestern Alaska are probably not as
contentious, thus, he may, after further study, consider Chair
Seaton's proposal to take refuges out of Amendment 1. He said
he thinks the Tongass National Forest is already off limits
because of the aforementioned Shields case. He added, "The bar
is still very high." Once a land selection is made, there are
several land managers that can make suggestions and "make these
allotment applications sit on ... their desks for years." He
said he sides with applicants of the allotment, because he
thinks the federal land managers have a huge advantage, which is
why he is "arguing so strenuously for this." He stated:
I understand your concern - don't get me wrong. I
don't want inholdings to become a barrier to healthy
management of those parks. I tend to agree with you.
But I think, together with inholdings that we've
already had, it's been proven that both management
pressure from parks and political or public opinion, I
guess you'd say, has kept those even from being what
they were promised they could be. So, I am concerned
about putting this in a resolution. I think it's
something we need to watch, but I think it would send
the wrong language.
9:33:17 AM
CHAIR SEATON moved to adopt Amendment 1 to Amendment 1, which
would remove ", Refuge," from the first "WHEREAS" and remove "a
national wildlife refuge," from the "FURTHER RESOLVED" portion
of Amendment 1.
9:33:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO objected to Amendment 1 to Amendment 1. He
offered his understanding that if there was an allotment made in
a national park, "they wouldn't be allowed to exercise
subsistence rights anyway ..., but they would be allowed to
build a lodge."
9:34:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he does not think Representative
Gatto's statement is accurate. He offered his understanding
that subsistence rights in national parks are guaranteed under
the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA),
but with some limitations. He said it is true that building on
the land would be allowed, but he would debate anyone who said
big hotels would show up on the land. However, he stated that
he thinks "they should have the right to do on their land what
any of us have the right to do on our land." He said the
reality is that most of [the Native American Vietnam Era
veterans] want land for traditional uses.
9:35:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO maintained his objection to Amendment 1 to
Amendment 1.
9:35:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER, regarding the Tongass being off limits
because of the Shields case, noted that the resolution would
urge that the allotments denied under the Shields case be
reopened and approved, which she said would "put the Tongass
back on the table."
9:36:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL responded, "The chances of us getting
that are probably pretty slim, but I think it's a reasonable
request." Both H.R. 1811 and S. 2000 do not include the
Tongass.
9:36:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS maintained his [previously inaudible]
objection to Amendment 1 to Amendment 1.
9:37:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked for confirmation that a double
negative is involved, thus, Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 would
allow national wildlife refuges to be used.
9:37:36 AM
CHAIR SEATON answered that's correct. He offered further
clarification.
9:38:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he agrees with Amendment 1 to
Amendment 1, but still does not like Amendment 1 itself.
9:38:37 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gatto, Lynn,
Ramras, Gardner, and Seaton voted in favor of Amendment 1 to
Amendment 1. Representative Elkins voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 passed by a vote of 5-1.
9:39:51 AM
CHAIR SEATON read Conceptual Amendment 1 [as amended] and asked
if there was any objection.
9:40:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVES RAMRAS AND ELKINS objected to Amendment 1, [as
amended].
9:40:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS stated that he likes HJR 27 the way it was
brought to the committee. In response to a question from
Representative Gatto, he reiterated his statement.
9:41:03 AM
ELKINS indicated that he objected for a reason similar [to that
of Representative Ramras].
9:41:07 AM
CHAIR SEATON spoke to Conceptual Amendment 1, as amended.
9:42:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, in response to a question from
Representative Gatto, reiterated his understanding that under
ANILCA there are some guarantees for subsistence use within
national parks.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, in response to a request for a
definition of "subsistence" from Representative Gatto, said
there are some restrictions, but it has to do with guaranteeing
harvesting of fish and wildlife "for certain subsistence uses."
He said he would have to review that information before
expounding further on it.
9:42:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, in response to a question from
Representative Lynn, reiterated that he does not support
Amendment 1, as amended. He stated:
If you go back under ... the D.2 selection of ANILCA,
there [were] a lot of lands that were taken off the
table by the President of the United States, under the
Antiquities Act, that did not get to go through the
public process and really violated these Native
allotment possibilities. So, I think the park system,
the refuge areas, and the monuments, did not take into
account the hanging issue of Native allotments. So,
as far as I'm concerned, they have the first right.
And so, that's one of the reasons why I've been so
adamant about it.
9:43:51 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gardner and Seaton
voted in favor of Amendment 1, as amended. Representatives
Elkins, Lynn, Ramras, and Gatto voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 1, as amended, failed by a vote of 2-4.
9:44:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER offered her understanding that HJR 27
addresses misinformation and broken promises, and she said it is
never too late to remedy a mistake or unfairness. She stated
that the issue that is troublesome for her is that the proposed
resolution addresses only Vietnam Veteran Era veterans and not
veterans from other wars.
9:45:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL responded that he asked the same question
when the issue was first brought to him. The answer, he
explained, is that the Native people "had access to this right
up into the '70s." The fact is, he said, many did not apply.
He stated that he lays much of the blame for that "at the feet
of BLM." He offered further details. He reiterated that he
thinks it is an issue of fairness to ensure that Native Vietnam
veterans from the entire Vietnam Era are given access to
allotment applications.
9:49:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked whether the Korean War was classified
as war or police action, and why veterans from that conflict
aren't included in HJR 27.
9:49:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, in response to the former question, said
it wouldn't make a difference if a veteran was involved in war,
cold war, or police action. He said the reasons that the Korean
War is not included in the resolution are similar to the reasons
he previously stated to Representative Gardner regarding why
veterans of other wars are not included.
9:50:50 AM
CHAIR SEATON said he applauds Representative Coghill's effort.
He stated that he thinks without Amendment 1 [text provided
previously] it will be more difficult to get U.S. Congress to
accept HJR 27. He said, "I'm afraid that the legislation, as
constructed, will draw numerous critics because of the potential
for degrading national parks [and] monuments and delaying the
gas pipeline." He encouraged Representative Coghill to revisit
those issues and see if there is any way to address them.
9:52:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO moved to report CSHJR 27(MLV) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHJR 27(MLV) was
reported out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 461-LEGISLATIVE DISCLOSURES
9:53:19 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the last order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 461, "An Act relating to disclosure to the Alaska
Public Offices Commission of information about certain income
received as compensation for personal services by legislators,
public members of the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics,
and legislative directors subject to the provisions of law
setting standards of conduct for legislative branch officers and
employees; and providing for an effective date."
9:53:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER presented HB 461 as sponsor. She
described the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) as both
active and capable, and she said APOC's job is to "follow the
money" and allow the public adequate information. She stated
that currently a candidate could accept $10,000 for consulting
work and list the amount of money without having to explain what
work was done for the money. She said that doesn't allow the
public to measure or evaluate any conflicts that candidate may
have or any interest people might have in what that candidate
does. Representative Gardner said she is not "married to the
specific language" in the bill and would welcome suggestions.
9:55:23 AM
CHAIR SEATON, in response to a remark by Representative Ramras,
clarified that the proposed legislation is not set out to
challenge or impugn any particular people in the legislature,
and he asked that the committee focus on the issues that are
brought forward by the bill.
9:55:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said the bill applies "to all of us in
exactly the same way."
9:55:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS asked what Representative Gardner may have
heard from the public to cause concern and drive the bill.
9:56:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER related that she has heard from people
who want to know "where the money comes from in our campaigns
and in our own personal lives." She said that information
allows people to evaluate how decisions are made and what kind
of factors influence candidates. She offered examples.
Representative Gardner stated that there has been a longstanding
tradition of revealing where the money comes from, a tradition
that she indicated has broad public support.
9:57:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS asked how a distinction is drawn between
the disparities in attorney fee amounts. He proffered, "What
appears like a value to one person may appear to be an excessive
charge to another person."
9:58:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER responded that Representative Ramras'
comment parallels a comment that Representative Gruenberg had
recently made to her: "An attorney may be able to do something
in a half-hour phone call that he could charge a lot of money
for and not necessarily want to reveal to his client that it
took him only half an hour to do the job." She stated that
nevertheless she thinks "we owe it to the public to give them
enough information to make their evaluation."
9:59:35 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked for clarification that the proposed
legislation doesn't address the amount of money a person
receives - because that information is already required to be
disclosed to APOC - but rather what they person did for the
money.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER confirmed that is correct. In response
to a follow-up question by Chair Seaton, she said, for example,
that a lawyer who is working on mergers would have to disclose
that he/she is involved in mergers, but would not have to reveal
with which companies or what terms.
10:00:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS directed attention to language on page 2,
lines 5-6, which read:
and the approximate number of hours that have been or
will be spent performing the services
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS said one attorney with a lot of experience
could charge one rate, while another with lesser experience
could charge another. He asked, "Why do we feel qualified to
attach almost a value per hour of services to this? ... I take
this to mean that there's almost a billable rate for personal
services .... Is that correct?"
10:02:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER answered no. She explained, "I think we
simply want the public to understand that real work is being
done." She offered an example.
10:02:33 AM
CHAIR SEATON noted that the committee had run out of time and
public testimony would be heard at the next hearing of the bill.
[HB 461 was heard and held.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
10:02:54 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|