01/29/2008 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB317 | |
| HB293 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 317 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 293 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
January 29, 2008
8:07 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bob Roses, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Kyle Johansen
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Andrea Doll
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Bob Lynn, Chair
Representative Max Gruenberg
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 317
"An Act eliminating the limit on compassionate gifts that a
legislator or legislative employee may solicit, accept, or
receive under the Legislative Ethics Act; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED HB 317 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 293
"An Act relating to the location of the convening of the
legislature in session and to the relocation of functions of
state government; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 317
SHORT TITLE: COMPASSIONATE GIFT EXEMPTION
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) COGHILL
01/15/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/15/08 (H) STA, JUD
01/29/08 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 293
SHORT TITLE: LEGISLATIVE SESSIONS TO BE IN ANCHORAGE
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) MEYER, LYNN, NEUMAN, STOLTZE
01/04/08 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/4/08
01/15/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/15/08 (H) STA, FIN
01/24/08 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
01/24/08 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed>
01/29/08 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
JOYCE ANDERSON, Ethics Committee Administrator
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
Legislative Agencies & Offices
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
317.
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MEYER
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 293 as prime sponsor.
MIKE PAWLOWSKI, Staff
Representative Kevin Meyer
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information during the hearing on
HB 293, on behalf of Representative Meyer, prime sponsor.
DON WESTLUND
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of himself during the
hearing on HB 293.
STUART THOMPSON
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of himself during the
hearing on HB 293.
WIN GRUENING, Chair
Alaska Committee
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 293.
JIM DUNCAN
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of himself during the
hearing on HB 293.
BRUCE BOTELHO, Mayor
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 293.
KATHY MUNOZ
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of herself during the
hearing on HB 293.
ACTION NARRATIVE
VICE CHAIR BOB ROSES called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:07:01 AM. Representatives
Coghill, Johnson, Doll, and Roses were present at the call to
order. Representative Johansen arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
HB 317-COMPASSIONATE GIFT EXEMPTION
8:08:05 AM
VICE CHAIR ROSES announced that the first order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 317, "An Act eliminating the limit on
compassionate gifts that a legislator or legislative employee
may solicit, accept, or receive under the Legislative Ethics
Act; and providing for an effective date."
8:08:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL introduced HB 317 as prime sponsor. He
said the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics asked him to
sponsor the proposed legislation, which would remove the limit
from compassionate giving. He related that currently there is a
legislative member who may not be able to receive a needed
kidney donation, because the value of getting the organ would be
over $250 - the limit currently in statute. Representative
Coghill explained that a kidney is priceless; therefore, the
value in question is related to the cost of making the
compassionate gift, including travel and medical costs.
Representative Coghill paraphrased the last paragraph of the
sponsor statement, which read [original punctuation provided]:
HB 317 eliminates the less than $250 limit on
compassionate gifts from AS 24.60.075(c) and allows
unlimited compassionate contributions, including organ
and frequent flyer donations. Mandatory reporting of
the compassionate fits is still required.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said it had been suggested to him that a
cap should be placed on the gift value. He stated, "If for some
reason it's inordinate, you still have the Legislative Council
who will be looking at it, and certainly if it gets way out of
order [the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)] will be looking at
it." He said the legislature anticipated the need for
compassionate gifts, but the $250 was "conforming to other
areas."
8:11:33 AM
VICE CHAIR ROSES noted that there had been discussion in the
Ethics Committee regarding the $250 limit, and while some felt
the limit was not necessary, others felt the need to close a
loophole.
8:12:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he had been concerned that the
legislature not try to establish the value of a kidney, and he
expressed appreciation that the bill sponsor had established for
the record that indeed that is not what the bill is trying to
do.
8:13:11 AM
JOYCE ANDERSON, Ethics Committee Administrator, Select Committee
on Legislative Ethics, Legislative Agencies & Offices, confirmed
Vice Chair Roses' remark regarding the concerns of the Ethics
Committee. She relayed that she has received three or four
phone calls regarding the donation of air miles. The $250 cap
limits the donation of air miles to Representative Foster to use
for round trip travel to Seattle [for medical purposes]. She
said Northwest Airlines assigned a value of $100 for each 10,000
miles. Ms. Anderson said another concern was a fundraiser held
in Nome, during which the Lion's Club raised $7,000. There was
no accounting of where the money came from, she said. She
added, "And if there was [a] $250 limit, we would have no idea,
because the Lion's Club just had a chicken barbeque and so
forth." She said she thinks the $250 limit puts an unfair
burden on the individual who is having the health-related
problem, catastrophe, or tragedy, and that limit should be
lifted. She said the person should be required simply to report
the dollar amount or air miles received.
MS. ANDERSON, in response to Vice Chair Roses, acknowledged the
reporting requirement exists in the proposed legislation. The
recipient would be required to report the gift within 30 days -
the disclosure is public. It would not be published in the
Legislative Journal; however, it would be posted on the Ethics
website and listed with all the other disclosures. She added
that there is some oversight provided, as well.
8:15:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON stated that his only concern is the 30-
day reporting period. He questioned whether that would be
enough time for someone who is recovering from a potentially
life-threatening disease, for example. He used Representative
Foster as an example, commenting that he hopes the legislator's
top priority when going for a live transplant would not be
filling out a form, but rather getting well.
8:16:42 AM
MS. ANDERSON said the 30-day reporting requirement was included
because that's what all the other deadlines are; it's a matter
of consistency. Notwithstanding that, she said she can foresee
no problem in amending that to a 60-day requirement or whatever
the committee decides is realistic. She stated, "This is not
the type of reporting that would be similar to, let's say, a
gift of travel or some of those that need the 30-day reporting."
8:17:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked what the response of the Ethics
Committee would be if someone were late to report in this type
of situation.
MS. ANDERSON answered that there is one "free" disclosure that
comes in late. Furthermore, the Ethics Committee has the
discretion to say that there were inadvertent circumstances
regarding the disclosure, in which case, there would be no fine
filed at all.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he is comfortable knowing that the
committee has that latitude.
8:18:08 AM
VICE CHAIR ROSES, speaking as a member of the Ethics Committee,
said the group of people serving on that committee are
compassionate, and "there isn't any way in the world anybody's
going to be fined or be found in violation of the ethics laws
under those kinds of circumstances."
8:18:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he is content to keep the reporting
requirement at 30 days for the sake of consistency, given the
latitude of the committee.
8:19:37 AM
VICE CHAIR ROSES, after ascertaining that there was no one else
to testify, closed public testimony.
8:19:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to report HB 317 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note. There being no objection, HB 317 was reported out of the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
The committee took an at-ease from 8:20:01 AM to 8:22:01 AM.
HB 293-LEGISLATIVE SESSIONS TO BE IN ANCHORAGE
8:22:03 AM
VICE CHAIR ROSES announced that the last order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 293, "An Act relating to the location of the
convening of the legislature in session and to the relocation of
functions of state government; and providing for an effective
date."
8:22:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MEYER, Alaska State Legislature, presented
HB 293 as prime sponsor. He prefaced his remarks by expressing
his appreciation of the people of Juneau, then explained that
the proposed legislation is needed on behalf of the public. He
said the issue is not new but needs to be revisited. He listed
reasons: abbreviated session length and increased public
interest in the goings on of the legislature. He said Juneau is
secluded from the majority of the people who live in the state.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER talked about the first special session held
in Anchorage last fall, which he characterized not only as being
successful, but also as being an eye-opener to the possibility
of holding sessions in Anchorage. He noted that although the
bill lists Anchorage as the place to move the legislature, other
places within easy access of the majority of the public could be
considered. He remarked upon the inconsistent weather in
Juneau, which sometimes results in flyovers to other cities.
8:25:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER said Anchorage is the logistical hub of
Alaska and has a sufficient airport. He mentioned a poll
conducted, in which sixty-two percent of the people polled said
they want the legislature moved closer to the majority of the
population. He said committee meetings that are held around the
state during the interim are not the same as being in session.
For example, no action is taken on legislation during interim.
Representative Meyer spoke of Gavel to Gavel, a public
television offering that covers the legislative session, but he
said it is not the same as being present in the building. He
remarked at how surprising it is that so many people don't have
cable television.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER said the cost of each session would be
reduced by not having to fly so many legislators to Juneau.
Although the bill does not propose where the sessions would be
held - that decision would be left to Legislative Council -
Representative Meyer noted that Anchorage has a new convention
center, which has left the Eagan Center virtually empty.
8:27:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER summarized the points in favor of moving
the legislature out of Juneau: to restore the trust of the
people; to improve accessibility; to save money for those
members of the public who could drive to the legislature; to
increase the number of people who would run for office; and to
bring the legislature closer to more school kids.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER stated that Alaskans have voted on this
issue before, and it has passed, "but for one reason or another
it's just never ... happened."
8:29:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL asked Representative Meyer to explain why he
chose to specify Anchorage in the bill, and if he would accept
an amendment to consider other areas.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER explained that he used Anchorage in the
bill in order to get the legislation introduced, but that he
would certainly accept an amendment to make it broader.
8:31:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL cited AS 44.06.050, which read:
Sec. 44.06.050. Purpose of AS 44.06.050 - 44.06.060.
The purpose of AS 44.06.050 - 44.06.060 is to
guarantee to the people their right to know and to
approve in advance all costs of relocating the capital
or the legislature; to insure that the people will
have an opportunity to make an informed and objective
decision on relocating the capital or the legislature
with all pertinent data concerning the costs to the
state; and to insure that the costs of relocating the
capital or the legislature will not be incurred by the
state without the approval of the electorate.
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL stated her understanding that HB 293 would
repeal that statute. In response to Representative Meyer, she
confirmed that the statute she cited was the result of the FRANK
[Fiscally Responsible Alaskans Needing Knowledge Initiative of
1994].
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER confirmed that HB 293 would repeal that
initiative.
8:32:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN said this issue is a difficult one for
someone from Ketchikan. After 20 years of battling for
Ketchikan's economy, he noted, there are a lot of residents
there who would agree to legislation that would get back at
Juneau for its lack of support during Ketchikan's struggles
regarding its timber industry. However, in terms of the effect
of the proposed bill on the good of the overall state, he said
he has some problem with it. He commented that he was not
impressed with the session held in Anchorage. He mentioned the
handout in the committee packet that shows a history of ballot
measures related to efforts to move the capital. In response to
Vice Chair Roses, he said he would wait to offer further
comment.
8:34:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL noted that she had just at that moment
received a fiscal note for HB 293, and she remarked, "I think
it's a little late to have this come on my desk for a bill of
this importance." She asked the sponsor if he had conducted a
study of how HB 293 would impact Juneau and Anchorage.
8:34:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER said he also received the fiscal note late,
the numbers of which he said can always be disputed. He said
the state is fortunate because currently it has surplus money,
which is why he said the time is right to move the legislature,
because the state would not have to bond to cover the cost. He
indicated that in the Office of Management & Budget's (OMB's)
cost analysis, one expense shown is that of flying bureaucrats
to testify before the legislature. He said it is backwards to
cover that expense while making the public pay their own way.
He said holding the legislature in Anchorage would bring it to
the population center of Alaska. He pointed to the fiscal note
prepared by [the Legislative Affairs Agency] and said he thinks
it assumes that all the support staff would be moved to
Anchorage. He stated, "We don't pay for staff to move to
Juneau, so I'm not sure we would necessarily assume that we
would have to pay all the costs to move the support staff up to
... Anchorage."
8:37:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL clarified that her question is broader. She
suggested that when the sponsor prepared the bill, he was
probably thinking of the positive impact that it would have on
Anchorage and perhaps considered the impact it would have on
Southeast Alaska. She asked him if he prepared those figures
and would share them with the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER replied, "I don't know what kind of
positive impact, if any, this would have on Anchorage or the
valley or wherever we ultimately ended up with this." He
related that he has heard people say that HB 293 would hurt the
economy in Juneau. He observed:
One thing that ... surprised me moving down here in
Juneau is that this town, this city, was built on
mining, ... and you have all sorts of opportunity for
mining here, and yet it seems to be something that the
folks don't want. So, I guess, in my opinion, you
have other opportunities, other than the legislature
here to strengthen and build your economy. And
certainly you've done a great job on the cruise ships
and expanding the tourism. But with us now only being
here 90 days, I can't see that this would have a major
impact on your economy.
8:39:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL expressed interest in seeing the details
of the aforementioned poll that was conducted, including: what
the question was, what the timing was, and what the demographics
were. He noted that in one poll, about 70 percent of his
constituents said they did not want Anchorage to have the
legislature. He noted that his constituents are not so much
considering whether the legislature should leave Juneau, but
whether it should be in Anchorage.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER responded, "As you know, every year we hire
we hire Hellenthal & Associates to do questionnaires for the
[House] Finance Committee to ... help us understand what the
public wants and expects us as a body to get accomplished." He
stated his understanding that all legislators received a copy of
the survey conducted in 2007. He said the question was: "Do
you think we should move the legislature - not the capital - to
a location closer to the majority of the population and that is
accessible by road?" Sixty-two percent of those polled answered
yes. He reiterated that he would consider other locations,
including Fairbanks, as long as they were within driving
distance of the majority of the population of Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that before the missile sight was
installed in Delta, there was talk about using the base closure
in Fort Greely. He said, "I don't know if we want it in
Fairbanks."
8:41:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN said people are likely to say yes to
something if the cost is not forbearing, and he asked
Representative Meyer if any figures were made available to the
public in the poll.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER responded no. He said the purpose of the
poll was to attempt to "get a feel for what the public wants."
8:42:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON noted that there is an office building in
Anchorage with an expiring lease, and there is a bill in the
Senate which would have the State of Alaska partner with the
Alaska Court System to tear the lot down and rebuild to include
office space for approximately 30 legislators. He said there
was discussion regarding potentially having committee rooms and
other offices. He said all that could be done for considerably
less money than leasing the Eagan Center, and it would mean the
state owning its own building and "not taking anything off the
tax roll." He asked the bill sponsor if he had considered the
matter.
8:43:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER answered no. He continued:
As you know that's being done by [Legislative]
Council, and we didn't really want to interject the
possibility of ... expanding that to the whole
legislature until we knew this was actually going to
pass. But certainly I think that could be
incorporated in the plan, like we talked about. ...
It's my understanding that right now they're just
planning on that being our interim office space.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER said the bill may look complicated, because
Legislative Legal and Research Services had to make a lot of
conforming language. He said Section 3 is really the only
section that pertains to the primary change proposed through HB
293.
8:44:30 AM
MIKE PAWLOWSKI, Staff, Representative Kevin Meyer, Alaska State
Legislature, noted that paragraph 4, on page 3 of the fiscal
note provided by the Legislative Affairs Agency, [dated
1/28/2008], gives mention to the building space to which
Representative Johnson had referred.
8:44:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN asked if there are other states that
hold legislative sessions outside of their capitals.
MR. PAWLOWSKI answered no. In response to a follow-up question
from Representative Johansen, he said he does not know the exact
number of states that have their capitals located in their major
population center, but he said he cannot think of too many that
fit that criteria.
8:46:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER said his home state of Nebraska has its
capital in Lincoln.
8:46:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL said Alaska has had to defend itself as a
state with stability. She remarked on the many issues that need
the attention of the legislature and the fact that the current
session is scheduled for 90 days, and she asked Representative
Meyer why he chose to push HB 293 through at this time.
8:47:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER reiterated that the public has changed and
is demanding to know what, how, and why things are being done.
He said that is what motivated him to bring forward HB 293.
8:48:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON, in response to Representative Johansen's
recent questions, asked how many states have capitals with no
roads leading to them. He added, "And I think we know the
answer to that."
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER said, "All the capitals, except for maybe
Hawaii, are all accessible by road." He related that he has
been disappointed by the difficulty in getting a road built out
of Juneau.
8:49:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN pointed out that Juneau is connected by
the Alaska Marine Highway, which is recognized as a highway by
the federal government.
8:50:46 AM
DON WESTLUND, said he takes offense at the sponsor's plan to
take away his right to know how much it would cost to move the
capital or the legislature. Referring to Representative Meyer's
statement that the state has the money to move the legislature,
Mr. Westlund recommended using that surplus money instead to
increase the accessibility of Juneau by improving the Marine
Highway System He mentioned an article he read in which
Anchorage was reported as saying that other communities are
trying to acquire the state's crime lab, currently in Anchorage,
and if they succeed, it would hurt the economy of Anchorage.
Mr. Westlund pointed out that moving the legislature out of the
capital would hurt Juneau's economy.
MR. WESTLUND, regarding the aforementioned survey, questioned
whether those surveyed lived all across Alaska or if they were
concentrated in the Anchorage, Matanuska-Susitna, Fairbanks
area. He remarked that he did not see any pollsters in
Ketchikan. Referring again to the surplus money, he said
Ketchikan could "sure use our bridge down here, also." He noted
that the last time an attempt was made to move the capital was
November 5, 2002, through [Initiative Ballot Measure Number 1,
entitled, "Moving Location of Legislative Session - 01CHGE"].
He said the vote on that ballot measure was 2:1 against it. He
noted that that ballot measure would have repealed the FRANK
Initiative, and it failed overwhelmingly.
MR. WESTLUND concluded:
You only have 90 days to do something. Why are we ...
rehashing this ...? It's been through five, six times
here, and it's failed every time except for one, and
it says to move it to Willow. If you're going to move
it, follow statute and move it Willow - not to
Anchorage, not to Fairbanks, but to Willow.
8:54:57 AM
STUART THOMPSON, read his testimony [included in the committee
packet] as follows:
Evaluating changing where the legislature convenes
needs to focus on ethical adherence to representative
government theory, not on hearsay and not on economic
impacts. I'm prepared to give exhaustive testimony
that Alaska government is using less than 40 percent
of the principles, processes, and methods that are
Alaska's political heritage. Naturally, this makes it
impossible to meet or difficult to meet expectations
of responsiveness to public will, because Alaska
doesn't possess the entire orthodox infrastructure to
adequately harness public initiative and harvest
public ideas for optimum government. Worse, many
can't really describe what our full political heritage
consists of.
Such ignorance is exposed by the assertion that
physical proximity to lawmakers by the population's
majority is essential to representative democracy -
requiring moving the legislature to increase public
access. This is propagandized as an "everybody knows"
principle of how our government is supposed to work.
Yet it is impossible to cite any exact passage of
American or Alaskan founding writings that makes this
idea legitimate. In reality, this principle is well
documented as key to successfully controlling ill-
educated populations by European monarchies -
particularly in France.
Do you politicians perhaps - God forbid - believe that
Alaskans are no longer politically mature enough for
representative government and so must be ruled by the
principles, processes, and devices of benevolent
elected aristocracies? If not, why can't you
legislate with explicit orthodox references cited?
This bill shows none. Furthermore, why do Juneauites,
despite their extraordinary access, currently pay
legislative lobbyists to represent their interests?
The answer lies in decades of public records of
citizen testimony as a percentage of population for
each civic area. ... You're missing such basic
legislative homework.
For those still puzzled, consider the following:
First, if lawmaker physical proximity to population
majorities is so key to representative government,
America would have moved Congress to St. Louis,
Missouri, right after World War II. Second, why did
America use military force to suppress potlatches by
our native peoples for 80 years after Alaska's
purchase? It's because potlatches successfully
performed much the same political functions that
Alaska's legislature is supposed to, despite then
having no roads, planes, or ferries to travel over the
same distances that we have to now. Think about these
things, you people of good will.
Finally, ... please find out why Alaska's
Constitutional Convention delegates took time to
discuss the light-hearted proposal of moving the
legislative session to Dutch Harbor - yes, to the
Aleutians. Good luck, people.
8:58:22 AM
WIN GRUENING, Chair, Alaska Committee, said the Alaska Committee
is a nonprofit, volunteer group dedicated to improving and
enhancing Juneau as Alaska's capital city. He said although
citizens of the state have repeatedly voted down efforts to move
the capital, the issue will probably never go away, and it is
for that reason that the Alaska Committee was formed. He said
the Alaska Committee addresses constituents' concerns about
access to the capital, and its efforts have been the genesis of
Gavel to Gavel coverage of the legislature, first on television
and, later, streaming over the Internet. The committee is also
responsible for: discounted constituent airfares, parking
improvements, improved airport facilities, and capital
improvements.
MR. GRUENING said the Alaska Committee knows that there are
additional improvements that could be made that would make
government even more accessible to constituents, at a far less
cost than it would take to move an entire branch of state
government, which is what HB 293 proposes to do. He stated that
Juneau's commitment to being the capital goes back as far as the
early Twentieth Century, when Juneau residents scraped together
the money to purchase the land that the current capitol building
sits on. Over 20 years ago, he related, Juneau contributed
millions of dollars to help fund the purchase of additional land
that was given to the state for the purpose of improving capital
infrastructure. More recently, the community of Juneau has
committed tens of millions of dollars to fund various
initiatives, to improve access to the capital, which have funded
the aforementioned improvements, as well as the donation of
several buildings for use by the legislature.
MR. GRUENING, regarding physical access to the capital, said
there is a poll that shows Juneau residents' support of road
access to Juneau by a margin of at least 2:1. He stated that
the Alaska Committee has consistently endorsed the Lynn Canal
Highway project that would provide road access to Juneau from
the north. He said the road would "dramatically reduce user
costs, increase capacity, save the state money, and allow [the]
Alaska Marine Highway System to more sufficiently use their
resources throughout Southeast." He reported that the committee
expects to see the Corps of Engineer permit approved within the
next two weeks, which is the final permit for that project.
MR. GRUENING said, however, that the Alaska Committee believes
technology remains the most efficient and least expensive means
to giving constituents access to the legislature. He said,
"This is why Gavel to Gavel coverage will always be our flagship
program here in the capital." He noted that approximately 60
percent of the $.5 million budget for [Gavel to Gavel] is
supported by the community of Juneau, either through direct
financial support or by in-kind contributions from Juneau's
local public broadcasting station, and the balance comes from
private sources. No part of the program is paid for by state
money, he specified. Gavel to Gavel is accessible to virtually
every single resident in the state of Alaska. He reported that
in a survey done this month across the state, almost 50 percent
of respondents indicated that they were familiar with Gavel to
Gavel, and 26 percent said that they watch it. This year, he
said, those numbers will increase with the launch of "360
North," which will take Gavel to Gavel year-round and allow
coverage of important events occurring in cities other than
Juneau, such as meetings of the permanent fund corporation
board, the Board of Regents in the University of Alaska, the
Alaska Supreme Court, and similar events. He stated, "Being
able to springboard off the success of Gavel to Gavel will allow
far more people from all over the state to see events no matter
where they are, and [in] far more numbers than they could or
would actually attend in person."
MR. GRUENING said the Alaska Committee hopes to expand
legislative coverage even more by video streaming all committee
hearings, which would allow anyone to attend a hearing,
regardless of his/her geographic location, from the comfort of
his/her home, office, or school. This would require
installation of fixed cameras in committee rooms, which he said
has proved to be quite successful in other states. Mr. Gruening
said this would provide tremendous opportunities across the
state for more outreach and participation in government. He
pointed out, for example, that this project could help schools
to teach civics in the classroom. He noted that the Alaska
Committee has begun discussion of funding and design of a
curriculum that would allow [the legislative process] to be
taught in local schools, in conjunction with live coverage of
the Alaska State Legislature.
MR. GRUENING stated, "Ultimately, all HB 293 would do is
economically benefit one region of the state, at the expense of
impoverishing another. He said since no other state in the
union divides its government in this way, there is no doubt that
it will ultimately lead to the movement of the entire capital."
He concluded:
Alaska has so many challenges facing it today, it
makes no sense to spend time and money on an issue
this divisive and controversial when technology can
achieve greater access at a fraction of the cost. ...
I would hope that you would hold this bill and instead
consider less expensive alternatives available to you
that will accomplish far more.
9:04:54 AM
MR. GRUENING, in response to a question from Representative
Johansen about the intentions of Juneau regarding the building
of a new capitol, acknowledged that the previous attempt a
couple years ago was not successful. Mr. Gruening characterized
forward-moving steps in technology as being most important. He
said facilities will always remain important, and the Alaska
Committee has considered ways to expand the existing capitol.
He listed some examples. He said those efforts will continue;
however, the focus will be on technology, because, ultimately,
whatever facilities there are will need to incorporate
technology in order to increase access to constituents across
the state.
9:07:36 AM
JIM DUNCAN specified that although he is a former legislator who
served for 24 years, he is testifying on behalf of himself. Mr.
Duncan reviewed that in the primary election, August 1974, there
was a vote on whether to move the capital and it passed.
Subsequently, the capital was not moved because of the
requirement of the FRANK [Frustrated Alaskans Needing Knowledge
Initiative of 1978]. He said it seemed like this issue was
something he addressed as a legislator, "every day of every
session, every year." He said it is an issue that won't go
away, and - although it should be - never seems to get resolved.
MR. DUNCAN stated that the reasons given for the necessity of
the proposed legislation - seclusion, isolation, lack of access,
and the ability to influence the process by the citizens of the
state - are the same reasons that were given in 1974. Back then
he said, those reasons may have been a lot more valid than they
are today, because tremendous progress has been made since that
time, and continues to be made. For example, he listed: the
capacity for constituents to participate by teleconference
through the Legislative Information Office (LIO); the Gavel to
Gavel coverage; the Global Positioning System (GPS) installed by
Alaska Airlines to better access Juneau - the first airport in
the nation to get GPS; and constituent fares.
MR. DUNCAN, regarding the argument that moving the legislature
will enable the public to influence the political process,
stated that the process will not change by relocating the
legislature. He said the special interest groups will have the
same access to legislators in Anchorage as they do in Juneau,
and decision-making will not be any different or better.
Location does not change the legislature, he proffered.
9:12:20 AM
MR. DUNCAN surmised that the legislation now proposes to move
the legislature instead of proposing to move the capital in an
effort to quell the fears of Juneau that it is going to lose the
capital and be negatively impacted economically. However, Mr.
Duncan said the effect will be the same. He said his experience
shows that there would be a natural erosion of positions out of
Juneau if the legislature were moved out of the capital. He
added that it has happened and continues to happen.
Furthermore, he said if the legislature is not in Juneau, many
policy-level jobs would move with the legislature and would do
so "on a year-round basis." He warned that if the legislature
is moved, what will be left are: an empty capitol building,
empty state offices buildings, an empty governor's mansion, and
many empty private residences.
MR. DUNCAN said he likes the fact that Alaskans over the years
have come together to work to protect the economy of the state;
they don't come together to destroy any one region of the state
or to take away its economic base. For example, there was a
time when a proposal was made to reduce the number of military
personnel in Fairbanks - which would have had serious negative
impacts on that community - and Alaskans banded together from
all over the state to oppose that reduction. He offered other
examples. He said, "You cannot ... let one area of the state's
economy be destroyed without doing something to support it."
Mr. Duncan said it makes him proud that Alaskans act in this
manner. He said he thinks that is why Alaskans have voted
against moving the capital in the past when they have been told
how much it will cost and what the impact would be on Juneau and
Southeast Alaska as a whole. He stated his belief that they
will say no again. He expressed concern that the bill would
repeal the FRANK Initiative - the right of the public to know
what the cost of relocating the legislature would be.
MR. DUNCAN, in conclusion, stated that although he no longer
lives in Juneau due to work, he considers Juneau his home, and
it is where his children, his grandchildren, his wife's family,
and his heart are, and he will be coming back to Juneau. He
stated his belief that the legislature and the Alaska public
will recognize, in the final analysis, that it is neither
appropriate nor good public policy to relocate the legislative
branch of government, which would destroy the economy of Juneau
and of Southeast Alaska.
9:17:44 AM
BRUCE BOTELHO, Mayor, noted that this year Alaska begins its
celebration of its fiftieth anniversary of statehood. He said
he thinks it is a time for Alaskans to consider what is
essential for the state, as a political entity, to achieve
progress and well-being for all Alaskans. He observed, "Long
before the airplane and automobile, and only shortly after the
invention of the telephone, all states that had achieved
statehood had settled the question of where their capital should
be located ...." He said although HB 293 is written as a
proposal to move the legislature, it really is a move of the
capital itself.
MAYOR BOTELHO stated that there is some irony that in the eight
votes that have taken place on the question of a state capital,
the only one that passed occurred before several of the younger
members of the current legislative body were born, almost 34
years ago. Furthermore, as Mr. Westlund had noted, the last
time there was a vote to decide whether the legislature should
be seated elsewhere than in Juneau, the voters rejected the
proposition, 74,650 in favor versus 153,127 opposed.
MAYOR BOTELHO said he thinks there are four reasons why HB 293
should not become law: First, as Mr. Duncan said, moving the
legislature is the first phase of a capital move. There is no
precedence in the U.S. for assigning the legislature to meet for
regular sessions outside the state capital, nor for separating
the legislature from the chief executive. The reasons, he
explained, are manifest. He said, philosophically, Alaska's
constitutional system of government relies on constant
interaction between the political branches of government, and
that interaction should not be needlessly impaired by dividing
the branches. Second, moving the legislature disrupts the
geographical and political balance in the state. He related his
sense that one of the core values of the federal republic and of
the state has been the belief that the best government is
reflected in the diffusion rather than the concentration of
power. At the federal level, he noted, that has been reflected
in the doctrine of separation of powers between branches and the
allocation of powers between the states and the fellow
government. It was one of the central points of contention in
the selection of the national capital, he said, to ensure that
the center of governmental power was not colocated with the
center of commerce.
MAYOR BOTELHO said Alaska's state constitutional founders
recognized the importance of dispersion of power, as was first
reflected in the Senate being regionally divided without regard
to population - a matter which was later overturned in a U.S.
Supreme Court decision. However, at the time, the framers of
the constitution also appreciated and provided for that
dispersion by centering the University of Alaska in Fairbanks,
since Anchorage was the commercial center, and Juneau was the
seat of government. Mayor Botelho summarized the second point
as follows: "The fundamental risk of consolidation is that
public policy in Alaska would be shaped largely through the
prism of one single geographic area."
9:22:32 AM
MAYOR BOTELHO moved to his third point, which was that moving
the legislature would devastate a region of Alaska, with a
ripple effect throughout the state. He said Southeast Alaska's
communities are highly integrated, and the loss of a capital,
beginning with the loss of the legislature, would have major
negative consequences on the whole region. The obvious losses,
he noted, would include the loss of payroll, contributing
members of the community, adverse impacts on housing and private
sector businesses - particularly those businesses that
seasonally rely on the legislative session, and transportation
within the region. He said there are three reasons that
Anchorage and other areas outside the region should be concerned
about this issue. First, he said he thinks an economically
healthy Southeast Alaska benefits Anchorage, because there is a
lot of commerce that takes place, particularly in the way of
professional services from Anchorage into Southeast Alaska, and
those services are predicated upon a level of economic activity
that takes place in Southeast Alaska. Conversely, an anemic
region, which will seek state support, will work to the
detriment of other areas in the state. He opined that the state
should not allow any part of itself to build its future at the
expense of another part.
MAYOR BOTELHO said the fourth point is that moving the
legislature is unnecessary. He said he thinks Mr. Gruening's
prior testimony highlights the major reasons for that argument.
He stated:
Eight years into the Twenty-first Century, and well
into the Internet Age, we have [unprecedented] access
to Alaska's legislators. We have multiple ways to
effectively communicate our views during and between
legislative [sessions]. Voting citizens, as well as
our future voters - that is the school children of
this state - whether they live in Ketchikan or Barrow
or ... points in between, can be intensely involved in
and learning about the legislative process in ways
that were not even dreamed of at statehood.
MAYOR BOTELHO urged the committee not to move forward with HB
293.
9:25:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that a recent attempt had been made
to consider [architectural plans for a new capitol building],
but that did not go as planned. He asked, "Is there a thought
in your mind of bringing another iteration of that?"
MAYOR BOTELHO replied that it is his view that a new capitol
structure should never be "off the table"; however, he said
there are issues regarding timing. He said there were adverse
reactions from the public to the final design concepts offered
by internationally recognized architects, because those concepts
did not reflect the taste of Alaskans. He said the result was a
lessened enthusiasm of the governor and the legislature for such
a plan. Mayor Botelho said it is difficult to move forward with
a proposal for a new capitol without the enthusiastic support of
the executive branch. Although no active efforts are being made
currently, building a new capitol is an issue he said he thinks
the community will continue to consider.
9:27:49 AM
KATHY MUNOZ said she is a lifelong Alaskan who has operated a
business in Juneau for the past 18 years, as well as having
served previously on the City & Bureau of Juneau Assembly for
seven years. Ms. Munoz noted that in 2009, Alaskans will
celebrate their Fiftieth anniversary of statehood. On February
5, 1956, citizen delegates adopted the constitution for the
future state of Alaska. Ms. Munoz said that document is
cherished for its clarity, and it establishes the basic
parameters of government, including the legislative, executive,
and judiciary branches. She said Article 15, Section 20 [of the
Constitution of the State of Alaska], states that the capital of
Alaska shall be Juneau.
MS. CASHEN opined that it is wrong to focus on efforts that pit
one region against another and cause economic turmoil for some,
including the devaluation of homes, the loss of jobs, and fear
regarding the future. She questioned why, with only 90 days to
accomplish enormous tasks that stand to unite Alaskans, the
legislature would focus only on the politics of division. She
urged the committee to work towards bringing Alaskans together
and to vote no on HB 293.
9:30:10 AM
VICE CHAIR ROSES, after ascertaining that there was no one else
to testify, closed public testimony.
9:30:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL thanked everyone for weighing in on the
issue, and she acknowledged the tremendous support from Juneau.
She remarked that the founding fathers who wrote the
Constitution of the State of Alaska must have been challenged in
trying to figure out how to unify such a huge state, with its
diversity of culture and language, and with very little
infrastructure. She said she thinks the issue came down to the
basic principle of looking after one another, and she thinks
that extends regionally and throughout the state. She talked
about the neighborly attitude of Alaskans. She emphasized the
importance of thinking of Alaska as one whole state.
9:32:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL related that she was not born in Alaska.
She said that in all the states in which she has lived, one
common factor was a great love of the capital. The capitals
became the symbol of the whole state, and those symbols were
expressed within those capitals. She stated that she has always
been amazed by "the lack of love from outside of Juneau for this
capital." She said she has witnessed the begrudging of putting
in a good ferry system, of putting money into the road system,
and of fixing public buildings. She asked the committee to say
no to HB 293, on behalf of the state.
9:34:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated that his feelings are divided on
the issue. He talked about being in Juneau since his dad was in
the legislature and loving the community. However, he said that
if his wife stays near their grandchildren, it means she does
not stay with him during session, which creates tension. He
stated his agreement with the bill sponsor that there are people
who will not serve in the legislature who could do so if the
legislature were located in a more centralized area.
Representative Coghill gave kudos to Juneau for its efforts to
offer housing and services for legislators. He acknowledged
Juneau's historic place in Alaska, both as a dignified seat of
government and through its connection of the Southeastern
Rainforest with the Arctic Northwest. Notwithstanding that, he
said the issue of who is able to serve in the legislature
becomes big.
9:36:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL expressed appreciation for Gavel to Gavel
and internet access; however, he said using those methods of
communication cannot compare to sitting across the table from
his wife. He said, "Having the legislature in Juneau creates
the problem of ... having ... an unintended tax on individuals
in Alaska who want to be able to be face to face with their
legislator when they're making the policy calls." He remarked
that although he uses his office in his district, if he wants to
spend time with his constituents, he does so outside of his
office, face to face. He talked about the isolation of Juneau,
and the tendency by some of his constituents to call legislators
in Juneau, "you guys down there." He said he doesn't know if
that would change if the legislature were to meet in Anchorage.
9:39:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said, for example, finding a quorum in
Anchorage may be more difficult, because people can get away on
the highway system more easily. He related that he has been a
personal advocate of moving the capital out of Juneau. He
mentioned impoverishing Juneau, and said, "The hurdle has to be
very, very high to get there." He said most people who decide
to run don't make where the capital is a sticking point. He
concurred that if the legislative body were to move out of
Juneau, there will be erosion. In fact, he said, that has
already happened: commissioners are doing a lot of their work
in the economic center of Alaska, and the Alaska Supreme Court
does not seat in Juneau.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said his first reaction to bill was
favorable, but he remarked that the proposed legislation still
hasn't "passed the hurdles I would like." He concluded that in
his district, "The reason people give for moving the capital are
all the reasons I've given, but the reason for not moving it is
they don't want Anchorage to have it." He added that if there
is any knowledge of people not running for the legislature
because it is too difficult for them to get to Juneau, he needs
to be informed of it.
9:42:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON stated his support of HB 293. He said
there was a map made in approximately the 30s or 40s, which
shows a future view of Alaska, depicting roads to Ketchikan, to
Juneau, and a railroad all the way to Canada. He remarked that
that is the vision of Alaska that the framers of the
constitution had, but that is not the picture that exists today.
He said, therefore, that he doesn't agree with the idea that the
framer's of the constitution decided that the capital would be
someplace where it would be isolated.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON mentioned "capital creep." He said the
reason for it is that certain administrations have had
difficulty getting commissioners to serve who are willing to
move to Juneau. He said he will get examples to Representative
Coghill showing the names of those who chose not to run for the
legislature [because of its location]. He stated that he thinks
the cost estimated in the FRANK Initiative was inflated. The
most compelling reason to support HB 293, he said, is for his
constituents who ask first about the pipeline, followed second
by the question of when the capital will move.
9:47:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN thanked the citizens from Ketchikan and
Juneau for their testimony. He said former Representative Joe
Green brought this issue up the first time, and he likened
having to hear it again to Chinese torture. He named the
representatives who have carried this issue in the past. He
said he understands where they are coming from and the
frustrations regarding the limited access to the capital, but he
thinks Juneau has done a marvelous job addressing those issues.
He stated that for him the issue is a matter of the region's
economy. Referring to the sponsor's suggestion that Juneau
could make its living mining, he noted that 90 percent of
Southeast Alaska is comprised of federal lands, and thus, it is
extremely difficult to get a permit to mine. Representative
Johansen stated that it is not so easy to replace an economy in
Southeast Alaska. He emphasized his wish to have a full
committee present before attempting to move the bill out of
committee.
9:50:14 AM
VICE CHAIR ROSES concurred that the bill should be held as a
courtesy to Chair Lynn and Representative Gruenberg, who are out
sick. He said he chose not to run for office in the '70s
because he did not want to uproot his family; however, he
pointed out that if the capital were to move to Anchorage,
Alaska, people from Juneau would have to be uprooted. He said
he knows several people in his community who would be wonderful
representatives, but have chosen never to run, simply because
they do not want to face the difficulty of being as far away
from their families as they would have to be.
VICE CHAIR ROSES said one question asked by a couple of
testifiers was, "Why now?" He said he thinks one of the reasons
has to do with the recent problems with ethics. He said he has
heard numerous times and read in the press that one of the
reasons for the recent ethical problems within the legislature
has to do with legislators being isolated, and thus it would
behoove the legislature to be closer to the population. He said
he does not happen to believe in that, because people will be
ethical or unethical no matter where they are.
VICE CHAIR ROSES said he made only three trips out of Juneau
during his first session last year, and of those three, two of
the flights ended up in another city besides Juneau [due to
weather]. Access is difficult, he said.
9:53:42 AM
VICE CHAIR ROSES mentioned the special session that was held in
Anchorage. He noted that he lives in a relatively low-income
area of Anchorage, which is also the most densely populated
district in the state. Last year, he said, two of his
constituents came to Juneau on a trip paid for by other
agencies. During the one-day session last fall, 11 of his
constituents showed up, and he said they did so because they
could drive or take the city bus to get there. He said that is
a significant difference in representation, especially for those
in low-income areas that don't have access to Internet, don't
have computers, and certainly don't have the money to fly. He
stated that he thinks access is a big issue. That said, he
related that he understands the impact on the economics of
Juneau that moving the legislature would have.
9:56:25 AM
VICE CHAIR ROSES announced that HB 293 was heard and held.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
9:56:29 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|