02/11/2014 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB274 | |
| HJR18 | |
| HB275 | |
| HB199 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HJR 18 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 275 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 199 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 274 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 11, 2014
8:06 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bob Lynn, Chair
Representative Wes Keller, Vice Chair
Representative Lynn Gattis
Representative Shelley Hughes
Representative Doug Isaacson
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Charisse Millett
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 274
"An Act relating to public hearings on initiatives and referenda
scheduled to appear on the ballot; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED HB 274 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 18
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to the office of attorney general.
- MOVED HJR 18 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 275
"An Act relating to electronic publication of certain municipal
notices and to publication and electronic distribution of
reports by state agencies."
- MOVED CSHB 275(CRA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 199
"An Act relating to Department of Public Safety regulations
allowing village public safety officers to carry firearms."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 274
SHORT TITLE: HEARINGS ON REFERENDA
SPONSOR(s): RULES
01/24/14 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/24/14 (H) STA, JUD
02/06/14 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/06/14 (H) Heard & Held
02/06/14 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/11/14 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HJR 18
SHORT TITLE: CONST. AM: ELECTED ATTORNEY GENERAL
SPONSOR(s): STOLTZE
01/21/14 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/10/14
01/21/14 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/21/14 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
02/04/14 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/04/14 (H) Heard & Held
02/04/14 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/11/14 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 275
SHORT TITLE: ELECTRONIC DISTRIB. OF REPORTS/NOTICES
SPONSOR(s): HAWKER
01/24/14 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/24/14 (H) CRA, STA
02/04/14 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
02/04/14 (H) Moved CSHB 275(CRA) Out of Committee
02/04/14 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
02/07/14 (H) CRA RPT CS(CRA) 6DP
02/07/14 (H) DP: HERRON, FOSTER, REINBOLD, OLSON,
LEDOUX, NAGEAK
02/11/14 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 199
SHORT TITLE: VPSO FIREARMS
SPONSOR(s): EDGMON
04/04/13 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/04/13 (H) CRA, STA
01/28/14 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
01/28/14 (H) Heard & Held
01/28/14 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
02/04/14 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
02/04/14 (H) Moved Out of Committee
02/04/14 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
02/05/14 (H) CRA RPT 5DP 1NR
02/05/14 (H) DP: REINBOLD, FOSTER, HERRON, LEDOUX,
NAGEAK
02/05/14 (H) NR: OLSON
02/11/14 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
JEFF TURNER, Staff
Representative Charisse Millett
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 275 on behalf of
Representative Millett, sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As sponsor, introduced HJR 18.
MIKE COONS
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 18.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As sponsor, presented HB 275.
KATHIE WASSERMAN, Executive Director
Alaska Municipal League (AML)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 275.
DEBORAH L. REICH, Foreclosure Specialist
Real Estate Services Division
Department of Real Estate
Municipality of Anchorage
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 275.
REPRESENTATIVE BRYCE EDGMON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As sponsor, presented HB 199.
STEVE ARLOW, Captain
C Detachment Commander
Division of State Troopers
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding the Village
Public Safety Officer (VPSO) program during the hearing on HB
199.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:06:38 AM
CHAIR BOB LYNN called the House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:06 a.m. Representatives Keller, Gattis,
Isaacson, Hughes, Kreiss-Tomkins, and Lynn were present at the
call to order.
HB 274-HEARINGS ON REFERENDA
8:06:55 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the first order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 274, "An Act relating to public hearings on initiatives
and referenda scheduled to appear on the ballot; and providing
for an effective date."
8:07:01 AM
JEFF TURNER, Staff, Representative Charisse Millett, Alaska
State Legislature, presented HB 275 on behalf of Representative
Millett, sponsor. He said the proposed legislation would extend
the public hearing requirements for referendums. He described
it as "an add-on" to House Bill 36, which was passed by the
legislature in 2010. He said referendums do not commonly occur
on the ballot, but noted there would be one later this year. In
response to the chair, he reviewed that an initiative is a voter
initiated item on the ballot that allows the public to enact a
piece of legislation in place of the legislature; a referendum
repeals a law that was passed by the legislature. Mr. Powell
said HB 274 would require the lieutenant governor to hold public
hearings in each of the judicial districts around the states,
and it would require a hearing of a standing committee of the
legislature whose members would be chosen by the presiding
officers of the House and Senate.
8:08:47 AM
CHAIR LYNN, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony.
8:08:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said he appreciates the sponsor bringing
forward HB 274. He said it seems like a great bill.
8:09:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON said he was thinking the same thing. He
said it seems necessary and is consistent. He said, "Anytime we
ask people to vote on something it is good to educate and have
both sides." He stated his support of the proposed legislation.
8:09:29 AM
CHAIR LYNN stated, "I, too, think it's a good thing." Regarding
referendums, he opined public hearings are needed.
8:10:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to report HB 274 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HB 274 was reported out of the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
HJR 18-CONST. AM: ELECTED ATTORNEY GENERAL
8:10:31 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the next order of business was HOUSE
JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 18, Proposing amendments to the
Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to the office of
attorney general.
8:10:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE, Alaska State Legislature, as sponsor,
introduced HJR 18. He said one reason to elect the state's
attorney general would be to "sanctify" that he/she would be
"the people's lawyer." He indicated that a current AG may call
him/herself that, but in fact is the governor's lawyer. He said
the resolution is for the future of Alaska. In response to the
chair, he indicated that subsequent to 1972, constitutional
amendments must appear on the General Election ballot. He said
if the legislature ratifies this by a two-thirds vote in each
body, it would be placed on the [General Election] ballot. He
added that then it would be in the hands of the voters, in whom
he trusts.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE said some people have suggested that an
elected attorney general may be politically influenced. He
stated that anyone who has watched attorney generals in Alaska
knows they already are political by nature. He said he trusts
that Alaskans would vet their candidates just as they do
legislators.
8:14:11 AM
CHAIR LYNN asked if it would be possible to have a governor in
one political party and an AG in another.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE answered yes, and said it currently
happens in about a dozen other states. He surmised that it
would be the will of the voters. He said he is not sure there
should be a mandate that the AG and governor are of the same
party, but suggested a stronger mandate would be that the AG
must be a person that will support the Constitution of the
United States, the Constitution of the State of Alaska, and the
people of Alaska.
8:14:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON said the sponsor almost had him
convinced, "especially because of the events here recently." He
stated, "Sometimes if you don't have a direct line of
accountability in place, you might have a different outcome; you
might have more scrutiny on issues and so forth." He said early
in the history of the U.S. Constitution it was possible to elect
a Vice President of a political party different from that of the
President. He asked, "Is there a way, perhaps, that we could
close that gap, so that if people are electing a governor of one
party, they could also then have, similar to the lieutenant
governor and so forth, a ticket, or is that going to bring too
close of a ... tieback?"
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE answered that it could be a possibility.
He said the lieutenant governor is tethered to [the governor by
political party]. He indicated that the difference between the
lieutenant governor and all other appointments is that the
lieutenant governor is elected by the people, does not require
confirmation, and cannot be removed by the governor. He said it
is part of the process for the committee to decide whether to
"propose that change here."
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON clarified, "How would that be affecting
the intent of your ... legislation?"
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE responded that he was "not sure it would
solve everything you would want it to solve," but said he thinks
"it would have the same net result, because that person would be
elected by the voters [and] could not be removed by the
governor."
8:19:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES suggested some may see an elected AG
position as a training ground for governor, which may result in
a lot more attorneys serving as governor. She then proffered
that a positive effect of HJR 18 may be that it could reduce
turnover of attorneys general. She offered her understanding
that in other states, the AG often serves a full, four-year
term, and go on to a second or third term, and that under HJR
18, there would be a two-term limit. She asked the sponsor if
he thinks [the proposed legislation] would impact the turnover
rate, and asked, "How do you see that as a plus for Alaska?"
8:20:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE replied that the average turnover of the
AG is 18 months, and HJR 18 would offer some stability, because
the AG would not be subject to "the whim of a political
disagreement." He said he does not recall a lieutenant governor
who has ever resigned. He said, "The attorney general, I think,
... probably would have ... more powers than the lieutenant
governor, [but] would not be in the line of succession though."
He surmised that morale would be raised within the Department of
Law (DOL), "knowing that they had one person" and "without the
vagaries" related to the current steady turnover of attorneys
general.
8:21:44 AM
CHAIR LYNN asked if there would be any additional cost in adding
another [position] for election on the ballot.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE indicated that the standard cost shown on
a fiscal note for printing an extra page is $1,500.
8:22:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS asked why the sponsor was proposing HJR 18
now, beside the fact that other states [have elected attorneys
general].
8:22:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE answered that others have pushed the
measure in the past. He offered his understanding that the last
three to four attempts were made by [Democrats]; therefore, he
called the issue bi-partisan.
8:23:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said he is looking forward to hearing HJR
18 in the House Judiciary Standing Committee (HJUD), and he
expressed his appreciation to the sponsor for bringing it
forward for consideration. He stated, "In a ... legal system
where crimes are against the state and the attorney general is
also the commissioner of the Department of Law, I think it's
very, very valuable for the people of Alaska to be able to know
who their attorney general is." He indicated intent to remain
open minded during the hearing of HJR 18, but said it would be
unfair to not state his bias.
8:24:53 AM
CHAIR LYNN remarked that the AG is basically a commissioner;
therefore, he asked if it would be appropriate to elect "all the
different commissioners."
8:25:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE answered that he will not delve into that
debate. He opined that the position of AG "rises to a much
higher level." He stated that the average AG can make law
faster than [the legislature]; the opinion of an AG can nullify
a statute or regulation. He said recently the lieutenant
governor turned down a citizens' initiative, based on the
opinion of an assistant and signed by the AG, and he said it
bothers him that an assistant AG has more power than the people
of Alaska, but with no accountability.
8:26:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON noted that city and borough assemblies
and councils usually have the power to hire and fire their
attorneys. Looking back on his experience as mayor [of the City
of North Pole], he said he used whatever attorney was there and
had no issues with them; however, if he had wanted to terminate
the attorney for not representing the interest of the city, it
would have been a political battle. He questioned what would
happen if the AG was elected and turned out not to be serving
the state's best interest and it was too cumbersome a process to
remove that AG from office. He suggested following the
municipal model by having the legislature hire and fire the AG,
which might provide a quicker political process, because the
legislature would know whether the interests of the state were
being served and the governor would not be directly controlling
"that one function." He asked the sponsor for his feedback.
8:28:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE, returning to Chair Lynn's previous
question, said in most states in the union, the agricultural
director or commission is elected, while in Alaska it is a
political appointment, and the only qualification is that the
person must be a citizen of the United States. Regarding
Representative Isaacson's question, he said he is not sure about
bringing the legislature into the process. He surmised that the
legislature has the ability to bring an attorney general before
it for a hearing if there are grounds to do so; however, he said
sometimes people won't show up for a hearing. For example, he
related that a previous administration chose an AG, the next
administration retained the AG, but the AG would often decline
to appear before the judiciary committees or would send
surrogates. He offered his understanding that it would require
an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska to give
the power to the legislature to "micromanage the attorney
general," which is something he said he does not want to do. He
emphasized that he wants the AG to work for the people. He
said, "I think an attorney general that's working for the people
would have no problem with the appropriation process here, just
like they don't right now." He indicated that there are critics
of the way things are working right now and the way that is
proposed in HJR 18.
8:30:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS expressed concern over the
possible loss of coordination between a governor and attorney
general of differing political parties. He asked about that
situation in other states and whether the sponsor thinks it
would be as pronounced in Alaska.
8:31:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE indicated that it would be no different
from having a governor and lieutenant governor who disagree.
For example, he recollected there was a lieutenant governor who
did not support the re-election of the governor's daughter. He
said there are conflicts in other states, such as when an
attorney general runs against the governor. He stated,
"Sometimes ... [when] trying to figure out how to stop politics
you inject more politics." He admitted that some people may
accuse him of doing just that, but noted that he has received
support from his constituents and colleagues for the proposed
joint resolution. He said there have been governors and
attorneys general who have worked well together and those who
have not, and he indicated that there are no guarantees,
irrespective of whether an AG is appointed or elected.
8:33:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES expressed appreciation to the sponsor for
pointing out how under HJR 18, the AG would be more accountable
to the people of Alaska. She said she values the public's vote
and hopes [a race for AG] would not become a beauty or public
speaking contest, because she ventured that someone who is not a
good public speaker could be a good attorney general. She
stated her support of [HJR 18] as a "healthy process." She said
she thinks it is good that the House Judiciary Standing
Committee will be considering whether there would be some way to
recall an AG. She questioned whether the race for AG would
appear on the primary ballot by party in a long list of names on
the General Election ballot.
8:35:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE answered that under HJR 18, the process
for electing the AG would be the same as the current process for
electing the lieutenant governor. He said, "The lieutenant
governor is almost written as another exemption." The AG would
run separately or as "a triad," depending on the will of the
committee.
8:36:24 AM
CHAIR LYNN said the concept is interesting, but expressed
concern about the possibility of having a governor and AG with
opposing views. He opined that the AG, who advises the
governor, should have similar philosophical views.
8:38:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE surmised that if the chair believes that
the governor and AG should be philosophically aligned, then HJR
18 is probably not legislation he would support. He
reemphasized that the purpose of changing the AG's position to
an elected one is to make him/her a direct representative of the
people.
CHAIR LYNN remarked that all elected officials are in office to
serve the people, and he suggested that by advising the governor
on the constitutionality of proposed law, he/she is serving the
people.
8:40:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE said he cannot predict every possible
scenario in which there may be conflict. He stated, "I'm not
trying to cast aspersions on anybody, but it's a different
relationship when the attorney general, first and foremost, is
the governor's attorney."
CHAIR LYNN suggested at least electing an AG who shares the same
political party.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE reiterated that he is "amenable to the
deliberations of the committee." Notwithstanding that, he said,
"I think philosophy isn't something we can define by statute,
and party doesn't necessarily define philosophy as ... we know
from some of our critics."
8:42:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS stated, "I think most of us get the fact
that if we were appointed by somebody, we certainly have a
certain allegiance by who may have appointed us, versus if we're
elected by somebody else - the voters - we certainly have an
allegiance there." She proffered that the question being asked
is for whom [the AG] works.
8:42:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER offered a reminder that legal counsel to
the governor is not just the AG, because as head of the
Department of Law, the AG has deputy commissioners, many of whom
give council in specific areas. He said, "By electing ... an
attorney general, I think we would begin to see that process
better in the electorate."
CHAIR LYNN stated his assumption the [assistant attorneys
general] would not want to irritate their boss by "coming up
with opposite opinions on everything."
8:44:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON noted that Wikipedia says an AG is the
advisor to the governor, while the Encyclopedia Britannica says
the AG is "the chief law officer of the state or nation and the
legal advisor to the chief executor." He said everyone seems to
recognize that the AG is going to advise the governor, but the
AG is also the chief legal counsel for the state. He opined
that there is a distinction between the governor and the
government, the latter being of the people. At the same time,
he said, the legislature is the government, as well, and makes
laws, and in some aspects the AG needs to advise the
legislature. Further, he said, the AG looks out for
infringements of law outside the state. Representative Isaacson
said he thinks the point to consider is where the line of
accountability is to be drawn. He said he thinks this relates
back to the Seventeenth Amendment, which he recommended should
be considered as a corollary. He asked the sponsor to weigh in
on the distinction between governor and government. He further
asked how the sponsor would "educate his thinking" so that he
might "align more to this." He said he sees value in [HJR 18],
but expressed concern that it may have unintended consequences.
8:47:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE said he thought Representative Isaacson
made a good distinction. He said there are differences and
similarities. He said he hopes that if things are working as
they should, an AG representing the government is representing
the people's interest as well. He said that could extend to an
elected AG, who certainly would have his/her own initiatives.
He mentioned "what Attorney General Sullivan did on [Governor
Sean Parnell's] Choose Respect [campaign]." He indicated that
activism and questioning the government is seen more often from
[an elected] AG serving the public than from a "co-employee"
that does not have "that same optic or prism."
8:49:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES stated that currently the governor signs
the paychecks of state employees, and an elected attorney
general would be the boss to those working in the Department of
Law. She questioned whether the governor would have any say if
there were people in the department he/she did not feel should
be there anymore. She offered her understanding that that
relationship would be different, but questioned how.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE mentioned an appropriation process in
other states. He then said the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) does not review the court budget; the court system
presents its budget to the legislative branch. He indicated
that the proposed joint resolution outlines the implementation
process for electing the AG, and that process could be fine-
tuned. He stated that he envisions that the AG would present
the budget through the legislative arm.
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES indicated she was thinking of a situation
in which the governor may have a problem with a particular AG
outside of legislative session and the appropriation process,
and asked how the relationship would be different in other
states.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE replied that other states have different
personnel rules. He added, "I don't think we'd be eviscerating
the employee rights."
8:52:45 AM
MIKE COONS noted he had submitted written testimony [included in
the committee packet]. He expressed his hope that [the AG]
would not be "a yes man or yes woman." He stated his support of
HJR 18. He directed attention to [a sentence] on page 1, line
16, through page 2, line 1, of HJR 18, which read, "A person is
not eligible to serve as attorney general unless the person
meets the qualifications for a superior court judge." Mr. Coons
stated that no one who has "run for a judge" will answer
questions regarding subjects such as criminal penalties and
minimum or maximum sentences, the stated reason being that they
may have to make a decision on one of those issues. He
questioned whether "we" would be reduced to candidates whose
campaigns focus on the length of time they have been a judge, a
lawyer, an Alaska resident, or a part of a fine family, or if
more substantive information would be given.
MR. COONS stated, "We need to know that the AG will stand for
the law, will fight back against federal overreach, and give
sound advice to the legislature without waffling as I have seen
from this existing Department of Law." He paraphrased a portion
of his written testimony, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Lastly, I struggled about this position being
appointed and vetted and approved or disapproved by
the legislature. I felt that the Governor and
Legislature were in a better position to determine the
best AG.
MR. COONS explained that his view changed as a result of
comments made by a Senator who believed he and the legislature
were, by virtue of a college education and superior knowledge on
the matter - especially concerning a constitutional amendment -
more qualified to make that decision for the voters. Mr. Coons
emphasized that he would trust his fellow voters to make a
valued decision, and he would not give up his vote.
8:55:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE said he appreciates the point made by Mr.
Coons, but said he does not want to confuse this with the
judicial appointment process.
8:56:53 AM
CHAIR LYNN, after ascertaining that there was no one else who
wished to testify, closed public testimony.
8:57:20 AM
CHAIR LYNN suggested that the committee could consider an
amendment to limit the choice of AG to someone in the same party
[as the governor]; however, he said such an amendment may be
better addressed by the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
8:57:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON said he wonders if conceptually it
should be the House State Affairs Standing Committee that
addresses that amendment. He indicated that if the proposed
legislation were to pass out of committee, he would recommend
that the conceptual amendment was in place. He said he sees a
lot of disruption of good governments, and he does not believe
that's what the people want. He said back when the Seventeenth
Amendment was passed, the idea was for Senators not to be
"selected out of the states," but to be voted on by the people.
He opined that "the people ultimately are the best government,"
and mistakes made by voters tend to be corrected later.
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON stated that one of the values of having
a governor appoint the attorney general is that the governor has
been elected to serve according to a vision that resonated
within the voters. In order to [follow that vision], the
governor must have department heads who will "toe the line." He
said that does not always happen, and when it does not the
result is a dysfunctional government. He opined that when it
comes to matters of law, it is important to have not just a good
lawyer but one who understands the state and whose philosophy is
"right." He said if the people elect someone who is recently
from another state, and that person is charismatic and has a
great record but does not understand the issues particular to
Alaska, then the state is stuck with that AG for four years,
whereas, an appointed AG that is not working out could leave
sooner.
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON opined that Alaska, at over 50 years of
age, cannot afford to "play lightly" with its future, which is
insecure at present because there are too many people in charge
that do not understand the requirements of the state's
constitution. He said he could envision how an elected AG, not
knowing the "peculiarities" of Alaska's state government, could
shut down resource development. He said the states lost their
power to control federal overreach when they lost the power to
"insert people selected by the various legislatures in to the
Senate" to protect the states' interests.
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON stated:
I would say I could go along with this as long as we
at least had alignment of parties. I don't want to
see a dysfunctional government or one that's divisive
to the best interests of the state.
9:04:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS said the state is hoping to build
a large diameter natural gas line, and he wonders how the
coordination between DOL and the executive branch would work,
under HJR 18. He explained that the project is one of
unprecedented scale and, presumably, would require unprecedented
coordination. He said he also worries that the AG position
would be filled more by political ability than professional
competence. Finally, he said he thinks the AG in Alaska is more
powerful than the lieutenant governor, in terms of scope of
power and responsibility. He stated, "I ... think that's a fair
point to make, that the precedent exists. This would be moving
that further, and that's just something we should acknowledge."
9:06:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER stated for the record that the House
Judiciary Standing Committee, [which he chairs], would consider
an amendment on the partisan issue, removal standards, and
qualifications.
9:07:32 AM
CHAIR LYNN echoed Representative Kreiss-Tomkins' remark that
there is a difference between campaign ability and legal
ability; just because someone campaigns well does not mean
he/she will perform well in office.
9:07:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS admitted that as a "political
junky," he would relish the idea of having another campaign to
follow.
9:08:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES offered her understanding that 43 other
states elect their AG, and she said she would like to know how
many of those states require the elected AG to be of the same
party as the governor.
9:08:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE said committee members had asked a lot of
good questions, and he stated his intent to address their
concerns. Regarding the concern that someone elected as AG
might not be intimately involved with Alaska, he said an AG that
is appointed does not have to be a resident of the state. He
recalled an AG that left the state right after service. He
indicated that the qualification requirements for residency and
citizenship are the same [for an AG] as for other elected
executive positions. He surmised that Representative Isaacson
might take more comfort if there was an assurance that the AG is
an Alaska resident - "someone familiar with Alaska and its
economy and our legal system, because they've lived here and
worked here." He stated that through the existing appointment
process, there have been people from other states serving as
attorneys general, some of whom were not even members of the bar
and had to secure that credential.
9:11:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to report HJR 18 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HJR 18 was reported out of the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 275-ELECTRONIC DISTRIB. OF REPORTS/NOTICES
9:11:51 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the next order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 275, "An Act relating to electronic publication of
certain municipal notices and to publication and electronic
distribution of reports by state agencies."
[Before the committee was CSHB 275(CRA).]
9:12:06 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:12 a.m. to 9:14 a.m.
9:14:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER, Alaska State Legislature, as sponsor,
presented HB 275. He indicated that the two main purposes of
the proposed legislation pertain to the state's ability to
promote efficiency and effectiveness of government and to reduce
unnecessary government spending, which he said could also be
called government waste. He said the first three sections of
the proposed bill would affect municipalities and the last two
sections would affect state agencies. The first three sections
would permit a municipality to adopt an ordinance to post the
following three things on its web site rather than printing
them: mill rates, foreclosure listings, and [expiration of]
redemption of foreclosures. He said similar legislation was
proposed in the past, but did not pass. He indicated that the
provisions in Section 1-3 of HB 275 were added after listening
to the concerns of the municipalities.
9:16:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER stated that the core of bill is in
Sections 4 and 5, which would reduce paper waste. He questioned
how many legislators actually read all the agency reports that
are required by law. He said under the proposed legislation, it
would be mandatory for those reports to be delivered
electronically. He said there would be exceptions, found in
language of Section 5, [beginning on page 4, line 30, through
page 5, line 4], which read as follows:
An agency may not produce print copies of
reports except as
(1) required
(A) under AS 14.56.120;
(B) by agreement; or
(C) by federal law; or
(2) requested under AS 44.99.260
or specifically approved by the head of a state agency
or the head's designee.
9:20:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER said the bill would not compromise the
public's right to know or the legislature's ability to access
information. He directed attention to Section 4, and said the
state already utilizes the Alaska Online Public Notice System,
and language on page 4, line 24, would require reports of state
agencies to go onto that system. Representative Hawker said HB
275 is not all-encompassing, but is a step in making government
activities more efficient. He said he thinks if this works out,
it will merit discussion in future years for expansion.
9:23:22 AM
CHAIR LYNN asked how much money might be saved under HB 275.
9:23:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER indicated that in 2011, $1.6 million was
spent on publications. He said that "as we have narrowed the
scope of this legislation," the Office of Management & Budget
(OMB) believes it is spending $530,000 for this type of
reporting. He said, "The savings is going to be somewhere
within that." He said he thinks it is realistic to believe that
there will be material savings across all agencies under HB 275,
and that future legislation could "go after the second million
dollars that's out there" and "be more efficient and effective
without compromising the public's need to know."
9:24:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES thanked the bill sponsor for what she
called "common sense legislation." She said as a new legislator
last year, she soon realized the difficulty in reading every
hard copy report and finding space to keep them all. She said
she had made a suggestion that the reports be provided
electronically, with a list of all the reports for legislators
to see. Representative Hughes questioned the reasoning behind
the language regarding graphic design reports, on page 5, [lines
13-17].
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER indicated that some reports seem to have
more emphasis on technical beauty than content. Under the
proposed legislation, an agency would not be allowed to hire a
contractor to provide photographs or graphics unless there is no
one in the agency qualified to do the work or hiring a
contractor would cost the state less. In response to a follow-
up question, he said he has no idea if an agency has ever [hired
a contractor for a job that would have cost less done in house],
but he has noted the "large volume of what would appear to be
very costly photographs" in the reports to legislators that are
delivered and "going by the wayside so very quickly." He said
the concept of the bill is to allow agency heads to retain as
much decision-making latitude as possible, while being mindful
that the directive from the legislature is to use the state's
resources more efficiently.
9:30:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER remarked he is sure the sponsor agrees
that the intent is not to quell information. He said he would
not mind if agencies spent funds doing work on getting
information available, such as a specialized application where a
legislator could find information on an iPad. He said he does
not want to propose an amendment, but would like the sponsor's
response.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER acknowledged the importance of testimony
in terms of conveying the intent of legislation, and he
confirmed that the "need in the state" suggested by
Representative Keller would not be compromised under HB 275.
9:32:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS opined that the proposed
legislation is fantastic. He echoed Representative Hughes'
remark about being a new legislator and noticing the money being
spent on reports. Regarding graphics, he said he thinks there
is an incentive for state agencies to out-do each other in
design, in an attempt to garner the most attention from the
legislature to secure funds for their causes. He surmised that
the cost of design has got to be extraordinary. He stated,
"When we're hearing numbers like half a million to over a
million, it's not ... just a symbolic gesture, but it's real
savings." He said he suspects the aforementioned language on
page 5, regarding graphics, would result in even greater
savings.
9:34:04 AM
KATHIE WASSERMAN, Executive Director, Alaska Municipal League
(AML), testified that AML supports HB 275. She remarked that
this is the first time in her many years involved in local
government that she has witnessed the state relax a mandate on
municipalities, and she said that is reason for celebration.
She stated that most communities know best how to relay
information to their people. She pointed out that, unlike
legislators who must leave their constituents to take part in
the 90-day legislative session, municipal officials are in the
vicinity of the people they serve every day; therefore,
municipal officials know early on whether information has been
delivered or not. She said as a former mayor in many small
communities, she was required many years ago to post everything
in the closest newspaper, which, with any luck, was delivered to
her community six days later. She said that was a waste, but
she knew how to get the information to the people, and other
municipalities do, as well. She thanked the bill sponsor for
bring HB 275 forward.
9:35:52 AM
CHAIR LYNN suggested that perhaps [legislators] should not be so
isolated.
9:36:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON said he echoes the testimony of Ms.
Wasserman and thinks the proposed legislation is "extremely
helpful." He said the elective aspect of posting requirements
is good. He asked Ms. Wasserman what kind of feedback she may
have received regarding HB 275.
9:37:13 AM
MS. WASSERMAN said she has heard from a few communities, but
AML's winter meeting is not until another week, at which point
the issue will be discussed at length. She said she thinks she
has been in her job long enough to know that for the most part,
if a legislative bill "falls under local control," AML would
never oppose it.
9:38:05 AM
DEBORAH L. REICH, Foreclosure Specialist, Real Estate Services
Division, Department of Real Estate, Municipality of Anchorage,
testified in support of HB 275. She said the Municipality of
Anchorage appreciates the provision in the proposed legislation
that would give municipalities across the state the option to
publish foreclosure notices on line or in local news
publications. She said that change would save the municipality
a minimum of $20,000 annually, a significant savings in times
when budgets are so tight. She expressed appreciation to the
bill sponsor and offered to answer questions from the committee.
9:39:37 AM
CHAIR LYNN, after ascertaining that there was no one else who
wished to testify, closed public testimony.
9:39:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to report CSHB 275(CRA) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 275(CRA) was
reported out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
9:40:05 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:40 a.m. to 9:43 a.m.
HB 199-VPSO FIREARMS
9:42:45 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced the final order of business was HOUSE BILL
NO. 199, "An Act relating to Department of Public Safety
regulations allowing village public safety officers to carry
firearms."
9:43:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BRYCE EDGMON, Alaska State Legislature, as
sponsor, presented HB 199. He prefaced his introduction of the
proposed legislation by offering an overview of the Village
Public Safety Officer (VPSO) program. He said the program was
established "in the late '70s and early '80s" to provide safety
to outlying rural communities that did not have access to
regular law enforcement presence. He stated that the program
has, for the most part, been successful. He said there were 125
VPSOs working in the early '90s, but currently, of the
authorized 120-plus authorized positions there are 92 or 93
working VPSOs. He explained the reasons for the ebb and flow in
the numbers of VPSOs are related to circumstances in the
particular communities and underscore one of the fundamental
issues of the program, which has been turnover.
9:44:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON said having grown up in Dillingham, a
rural part of the state, he is familiar with the circumstances
surrounding the VPSO program. He said his research in preparing
to present HB 199 has taught him to appreciate what VPSOs do
throughout rural Alaska. He expressed pride in some of the
changes that have occurred in rural Alaska over the years in the
areas of transportation, health care, and education, as well as
opportunities for living a subsistence/cash lifestyle; however,
he said the increased use of hard drugs and pervasive use of
alcohol have resulted in increased violence in rural Alaska
communities. He indicated that these problems have created a
more lethal environment in which VPSOs must operate.
9:46:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON explained that all this came to a head on
March 19, [2014], when a VPSO lost his life in the line of duty.
He said on a recent trip home, he listened to harrowing accounts
of the experiences of two VPSOs, who sometimes dealt with
perpetrators with high powered rifles and other arms that put a
VPSO in danger. Representative Edgmon said he introduced HB 199
to require [the commissioner of the Department of Public Safety]
not to prohibit VPSOs from carrying firearms. He emphasized
that under HB 199, VPSOs would have to meet minimum standards
and training in order to qualify to carry firearms.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON relayed that he has been contacted by many
not-for-profit organizations around the state, as well as
members of the rural community, and he said he thinks the
support [for HB 199] is widespread. He said there are a few
communities that have some trepidation and may not want to have
an armed VPSO; however, the way HB 199 is structured, that
decision would be made between the department, the regional
Native association, and the community itself.
9:49:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON said there is a fiscal note of
approximately $62,000 a year, which is based on the department's
premise that about 20 VPSOs would be sent to the training
academy in Sitka, Alaska. He said the fiscal note is broken
down into three components: travel; liability, under the
services component; and commodities, including the cost of the
firearms, holsters, and ammunition.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON relayed that last week he learned of a
VPSO program oversight issue, which the department is currently
in the process of rectifying. He recommended the committee
invite Captain Steve Arlow to explain the oversight and have the
deputy commissioner provide details about the training program
that would be offered under HB 199. He said during the last
legislative session, the department began putting regulations
into effect that would not prohibit a regional association in a
community to work towards the process of getting a VPSO armed.
He said the thrust of the bill is to make the proposed change in
perpetuity and to help legitimize the program, in terms of any
secondary issues that may follow the arming of VPSOs in Alaska.
In response to the chair, he confirmed that under HB 199, the
arming of VPSOs would be optional for rural communities.
9:51:44 AM
STEVE ARLOW, Captain, C Detachment Commander, Division of State
Troopers, Department of Public Safety (DPS), testified that he
has run the Alaska VPSO program for the last eight years. He
brought to the attention of the committee an event wherein a
nonprofit organization hired a VPSO with a felony conviction.
In response to the chair, he said conviction was for a Driving
Under the Influence (DUI) incident, which resulted in the harm
of another individual, but he indicated that there were no
firearms involved. He said there is a procedure, written in
regulation 13 AAC, which gives guidelines on what investigators
are supposed to consider and what they can and cannot approve in
a person's background. The regulation makes clear that a person
with a felony conviction cannot enter into the VPSO program and
a nonprofit cannot use state funds to hire someone with a felony
conviction as a VPSO. Nevertheless, he pointed out that there
is regulation that allows the commissioner of DPS or his
designee to review any denials in the process by a nonprofit, if
the nonprofit requests the review. He said that is what
happened in the aforementioned case. He said this case came to
his desk after an investigator reviewed the background, which
showed that the person interested in becoming a VPSO was from
the community, and his father had been a VPSO for over 20 years.
The application was the first the department had received from
this village since the father had left.
CAPTAIN ARLOW stated that it is challenging to find people who
will fill VPSO positions, and the nonprofit organization said
the community really supported the selection of the individual
as its VPSO; he had only one felony event, and that was twelve
years ago. He said he reviewed the case yesterday and it
appears it is complex, because the details are unclear. He said
there is a letter from the district attorney, who wanted to
decline prosecution because of insufficient evidence, but the
case went forward and a plea agreement was made to a different
level of assault, but it was still a felony. He said it also
appears that the information surrounding the event is "a little
muddy." He offered further details.
CAPTAIN ARLOW explained that he shared this information as an
example not only of why there are guiding regulations, but also
why there is a stipulation that allows a commissioner or his/her
designee to "look at these on a case-by-case basis to determine"
whether each meets "the intent of the law, the letter of the
law." He said this is the only individual in the program who
has the background of a felony conviction. He said, "We don't
make it a practice, but it is something that in this case we did
have one." In response to follow-up questions, he reiterated
that the person was convicted of a felony, and he said the
person is still working as a VPSO and appears to be doing a very
good job.
9:57:20 AM
CHAIR LYNN asked what the entry pay is for a VPSO.
CAPTAIN ARLOW answered it is currently $25 an hour, and there
could be benefit packages included, depending on which nonprofit
employs the VPSO. Further, he said in some instances the
communities provide housing and stipends for fuel "and other
things" for those living in a rural village.
9:57:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES recollected that the sponsor had said
there are currently 93 VPSOs working, and she asked how many
villages that covers. Also, she asked how long a rural
community might expect to wait until an armed Alaska State
Trooper arrived.
CAPTAIN ARLOW answered that currently there are 69 communities
serviced by VPSOs; however, some VPSOs are assigned to hub
communities that touch other communities beyond those 69.
Regarding response time, he relayed that having been the
detachment commander for Western Alaska for many years, he can
say that there are times Alaska State Troopers have arrived in
villages the same day, even within hours of an event. He said
there are not enough troopers to respond to all communities
simultaneously, but they do their best to respond to calls and
have to prioritize them.
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES said having lived out in Bush communities,
response time is a concern. She added, "Thus the need for this
legislation."
10:00:28 AM
CHAIR LYNN said he thinks HB 199 is an important bill.
10:00:30 AM
CHAIR LYNN closed public testimony.
10:01:08 AM
CHAIR LYNN reopened public testimony.
[HB 199 was held over.]
10:01:13 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 10:01
a.m.