03/28/2017 03:30 PM Senate COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB8 | |
| SJR4 | |
| HB18 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 18 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SJR 4 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 8 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 28, 2017
3:37 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Click Bishop, Chair
Senator Anna MacKinnon
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Bert Stedman
Senator Berta Gardner
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 8
"An Act relating to protective orders."
- HEARD & HELD
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 4
Urging the Alaska Congressional delegation to introduce bills to
provide for the exemption of legally acquired walrus, mammoth,
and mastodon ivory from laws that ban the sale, use, and
possession of ivory.
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 18
"An Act relating to race classics."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 8
SHORT TITLE: ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN PROTECTIVE ORDERS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) EDGMON
01/18/17 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/17
01/18/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/17 (H) CRA, JUD
01/31/17 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
01/31/17 (H) Moved HB 8 Out of Committee
01/31/17 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
02/01/17 (H) CRA RPT 5DP 1NR
02/01/17 (H) DP: TALERICO, WESTLAKE, DRUMMOND,
PARISH, FANSLER
02/01/17 (H) NR: RAUSCHER
02/08/17 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/08/17 (H) Heard & Held
02/08/17 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/13/17 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/13/17 (H) Heard & Held
02/13/17 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/15/17 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/15/17 (H) Moved HB 8 Out of Committee
02/15/17 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/17/17 (H) JUD RPT 4DP 2NR
02/17/17 (H) DP: KOPP, KREISS-TOMKINS, FANSLER,
CLAMAN
02/17/17 (H) NR: EASTMAN, REINBOLD
03/06/17 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
03/06/17 (H) VERSION: HB 8
03/08/17 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/08/17 (S) CRA, JUD
03/16/17 (S) CRA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/16/17 (S) Heard & Held
03/16/17 (S) MINUTE(CRA)
03/21/17 (S) CRA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/21/17 (S) Scheduled but Not Heard
03/28/17 (S) CRA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
BILL: SJR 4
SHORT TITLE: AK LEGALLY ACQUIRED IVORY USE EXEMPTION
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) OLSON
02/01/17 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/01/17 (S) CRA, RES
03/28/17 (S) CRA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
BILL: HB 18
SHORT TITLE: RACE CLASSICS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) ORTIZ
01/18/17 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/17
01/18/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/17 (H) L&C, FIN
01/30/17 (H) L&C AT 3:30 PM BARNES 124
01/30/17 (H) Heard & Held
01/30/17 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
02/03/17 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
02/03/17 (H) Moved HB 18 Out of Committee
02/03/17 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
02/06/17 (H) L&C RPT 6DP 1NR
02/06/17 (H) DP: STUTES, WOOL, JOSEPHSON, BIRCH,
KNOPP, KITO
02/06/17 (H) NR: SULLIVAN-LEONARD
02/10/17 (H) FIN REFERRAL WAIVED
02/13/17 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
02/13/17 (H) VERSION: HB 18
02/15/17 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/15/17 (S) CRA, L&C
03/28/17 (S) CRA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
WITNESS REGISTER
BRITTANY HUTCHISON, staff
Senator Anna MacKinnon
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided an explanation of Amendment 1 for
HB 8.
NANCY MEADE, General Council
Administrative Staff
Alaska Court System
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 8.
MEGAN WALLACE, Legislative Legal Counsel
Legislative Legal Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 8.
SENATOR DONNY OLSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SJR 4.
JACQUELINE BOYER, staff
Senator Donny Olson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SJR 4 for the sponsor.
SUSIE SILOOK, representing herself
Tulalip, Washington
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 4.
ALICE BIOFF, Kawerak Inc.
Nome, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 4.
JOHN WAGHIYI, representing himself
Savoonga, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 4.
DERA METALF, Program Director
Eskimo Walrus Commission
Nome, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 4.
REPRESENTATIVE DANIEL ORTIZ
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 18.
ELIZABETH BOLLING, staff
Representative Daniel Ortiz
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Available to comment on HB 18.
BILL SWIFT, Executive Director
Greater Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Stated that GKCC unanimously supported HB
18.
CHELSEA GOUCHER, Vice President
Ketchikan Chamber Board of Directors
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Stated wholehearted support for HB 18.
JASON CUSTER, member
Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 18.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:37:55 PM
CHAIR CLICK BISHOP called the Senate Community and Regional
Affairs Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:37 p.m. All
members were present at the call to order.
3:39:04 PM
HB 8-ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN PROTECTIVE ORDERS
CHAIR BISHOP announced consideration of HB 8.
SENATOR MACKINNON moved Amendment 1, labelled 30-LS0127\A.3
30-LS0127\A.3
Wallace
3/16/17
AMENDMENT 1
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR MACKINNON
TO: HB 8
Page 4, following line 22:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 8. AS 22.35.030 is amended to read:
Sec. 22.35.030. Publication of Records [RECORDS
CONCERNING CRIMINAL CASES RESULTING IN ACQUITTAL OR
DISMISSAL]. The Alaska Court System may not publish a
court record [OF A CRIMINAL CASE] on a publicly
available website
(1) in a criminal case if 60 days have
elapsed from the date of acquittal or dismissal and
(A) [(1)] the defendant was acquitted of
all charges filed in the case;
(B) [(2)] all criminal charges against the
defendant in the case have been dismissed and were not
dismissed as part of a plea agreement in another
criminal case under Rule 11, Alaska Rules of Criminal
Procedure;
(C) [(3)] the defendant was acquitted of
some of the criminal charges in the case and the
remaining charges were dismissed; or
(D) [(4)] all criminal charges against the
defendant in the case have been dismissed after a
suspended entry of judgment under AS 12.55.078;
(2) of a protective order under
AS 18.66.100 - 18.66.180, restraining order, or
injunction in a case involving domestic violence if
the publication would likely reveal the identity or
location of the party protected under the order."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
CHAIR BISHOP objected for discussion purposes.
3:39:41 PM
BRITTANY HUTCHISON, staff to Senator MacKinnon, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, explained that Amendment 1 would
put Alaska in further compliance with the Federal Violence
Against Women Act (VAWA). It requires that all protective
orders, restraining orders, or injunctions in cases involving
domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking shall not be
published on the Internet if they would likely reveal the
identity or location of the party protected under the order.
She said the bulk of the amendment is in section 2 and
everything else is conforming changes. Section 2 was written to
comply with Title 18 of US Code Section 22.65 (d)(2), entitled
"No Prior Registration or Filing as a Prerequisite for
Enforcement." However, right below that (d)(3), entitled
"Limits on Internet Publication or Registration Information" is
what the amendment seeks to be in compliance with. The amendment
is worded exactly the same.
3:41:26 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Alaska Court System, Juneau,
Alaska, explained that using this language means that the court
system would remove the public version that people can access
from home from CourtView and it applies to all records of
domestic violence protective orders, as well as stalking and
sexual assault protective orders. This is because any record of
a protective order would likely [inadvertently] reveal the
identity or location of a protected party. Just removing the
petitioners' names could leave clues as to the other
information. If something is left on CourtView like unpublished
or anonymous versus Click Bishop with a Fairbanks case number,
that does in fact reveal the identity of the person bringing it
as well as the location. She said the court system can remove
everything with no fiscal impact.
SENATOR MACKINNON asked what language about protecting a
victim's identity would instruct the court to adequately comply
with the federal law.
MS. MEADE answered the problem is that by saying "to remove
anything that reveals the identity or location of the person who
files," makes it very easy to figure out the information that is
left out. The court system could be instructed to remove all
names or one name, but removing just one name (thus leaving
enough information to figure out other names) would be violating
federal statute.
She explained that in the past, the court system applied VAWA to
foreign (non-Alaskan) domestic violence protective orders,
because it is in federal law. That meant they didn't post
anything about protective orders that came from other
jurisdictions. The legislature can tell the court to do more if
it thinks VAWA requires more and they will do it. She just
wanted to make sure they know how language would be implemented.
3:45:05 PM
SENATOR MACKINNON asked if Alaska protects out-of-state orders
more vigorously than in-state orders in compliance issues.
MS. MEADE answered that provision of VAWA deals with full faith
and credit to be given to foreign protective orders. They can do
the same thing for Alaskan protective orders, which this
language would tell them to do.
SENATOR MACKINNON said they are trying to come into federal
compliance with victims who petition the court for protection,
and HB 8 takes them one step closer, but the amendment is trying
to put the state in full compliance. The courts are asserting
today that there is only one way to do it, and that is to remove
all data. They have contacted the Council on Domestic Violence
and Sexual Assault, as well as the Alaska Network on Domestic
Violence and Sexual Assault. They are all inclined to have the
perpetrator, or the accused have their names public so that the
general public knows there could be harm associated with those
individuals that are being at least accused if not prosecuted.
If this amendment fails, she wanted to be able to craft new,
compliant legislation with help from the court.
3:47:21 PM
SENATOR GARDNER asked if there is a proposal to fix Senator
MacKinnon's concern without the unintended consequence.
MS. MEADE answered that she worked with Senator MacKinnon's
staff and it would be simple if the statute said that the court
system may not publish a petitioner's name in a domestic
violence, stalking, or sexual assault protective order. That
would be easy and perhaps would get to where they want to go if
what they want is to keep petitioner's names off the Internet
but leave respondent's names. That is not difficult to draft.
3:48:09 PM
At ease
3:48:51 PM
SENATOR MACKINNON said her staff had the language "petitioner"
and when it was submitted to Legislative Legal they were given a
legal opinion that said it would not be in compliance. So, she
wanted to ask Megan Wallace to speak to the reasons why she
believes it would still be out of compliance.
3:49:21 PM
MEGAN WALLACE, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative Legal
Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, Alaska State Legislature,
Juneau, Alaska, said in regard to changing the amendment so that
only the petitioner's name would appear on CourtView, her
concern is that the federal statute states that to be in
compliance the publication cannot reveal the identity or the
location of the party. She was not certain if they take out the
language relating to revealing the identity of or location of
the party, if it doesn't leave room for non-compliance with that
federal law. Federal statute states that publications cannot
reveal identification or location of the party.
SENATOR MACKINNON said her goal is to comply with federal law
and protect victims of domestic violence and asked to hear from
Ms. Meade.
MS. MEADE said she didn't think her legal opinion on this really
matters, but if your legal conclusion is that just writing
"petitioners" would not be compliant with federal law, then you
would go with this wording. But with this wording and perhaps
what Ms. Wallace is trying to say is that nothing would be
posted about a case on their Internet site.
It is difficult to research what other states do definitively. A
Michigan Supreme Court opinion at least implies that nothing can
be posted about domestic violence protective orders on the
Internet under VAWA. She wasn't saying that is the standard in
the U.S. and she wasn't proffering her legal opinion, but rather
she is saying how the wording in the statute would be
implemented should this amendment pass.
3:51:54 PM
SENATOR STEDMAN said this is about as clear as mud and that the
committee should proceed with caution so they understand what
they are voting on. He asked to clarify that they can't by
federal law publish the names of the accused.
MS. MEADE said it is Legislative Legal's conclusion that the
portion of federal law that says that petitioners' names ought
to be protected in protective order proceedings was interpreted
by the court previously to apply only to orders coming in from
other states. Legislative Legal has determined that applies to
all protective orders filed in the state, as well. Now the
question is how to write that into an amendment. You could write
"never put a petitioner's name on CourtView" and that can be
done. But Legislative Legal thinks that wouldn't go far enough
towards putting the state into compliance with federal law,
which says "can't put anything on there that would reveal the
identity or location." That is the wording in Senator
MacKinnon's amendment. However, in practice the CourtView can't
show anything, because displaying a domestic violence case in
Fairbanks with anonymous versus Click Bishop, alerts people to
whom the other party is.
CHAIR BISHOP, finding no further comments, held HB 8 in
committee.
SJR 4-AK LEGALLY ACQUIRED IVORY USE EXEMPTION
3:56:21 PM
CHAIR BISHOP announced consideration of SJR 4.
SENATOR DONNY OLSON, sponsor of SJR 4, Alaska State Legislature,
Juneau, Alaska, explained this resolution is designed to do two
things: to show support for products made out of ivory by
Alaskans in the State of Alaska as well as to urge the federal
delegation to provide for exemptions for legally obtained ivory
in the United States.
This resolution was brought to his attention by his constituents
from Kaktovik, which is at the eastern border of Canada, down to
Diomede and Hooper Bay. Those constituents, especially during
the Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN) annual convention, told
him they were very concerned about what was going on with the
ban on elephant ivory, because the byproducts of other ivories
provide necessary incomes to indigenous people that take the
edge off of living out there.
SENATOR OLSON said he would like to be able to wear his ivory
jewelry without it being banned in other states. He displayed a
baleen basket with a fossilized narwhal ivory top and a mastodon
ivory carving made by the former mayor of the Northwest Arctic
Borough, Ross Shaffer.
JACQUELINE BOYER, staff to Senator Donny Olson, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, further explained SJR 4 on behalf
of the sponsor. She said New York is a state that bans ivory and
defines it as pertaining to elephant and mammoth, even though
mammoth is extinct. Their statute prohibits selling, offering to
sell, purchase, trade, barter or distribute any ivory or
rhinoceros horn and then provides for some exceptions (such as
to license or permit an antique for educational or scientific
purposes, an estate, or a musical instrument). Fines associated
with possessing ivory include up to a minimum of $500 up to a
class D felony with a $25,000 fine.
California prohibits purchasing, selling, offering to sell,
possessing with intent to sell, or importing ivory. Their
definitions of ivory include elephant, hippopotamus, mammoth,
mastodon, walrus, warthog, whale, and narwhal. Their exemptions
include permits for instruments or for educational purposes. The
fines are from $1,000 up to $50,000.
Hawaii prohibits selling, offering to sell, purchasing, trading,
possessing with intent to sell, and bartering ivory including
whale, walrus, and mammoth, noting that even though it's extinct
they still want to prevent people from possessing it. Their
exceptions include the right of the indigenous people to possess
and do their traditional practices, much like in Alaska, but
they don't include Alaska Natives in the rights to sell to other
people in Hawaii.
4:01:23 PM
New Jersey has similar language, but just blatantly says all
ivory rather than listing endangered or extinct species. They
don't provide for any exceptions. The most serious offense -
after the third time - is seizure of all ivory.
The State of Washington only bans living elephant ivory, which
seems to be the most reasonable provision.
CHAIR BISHOP asked if mastodon ivory is legal in Washington
State.
MS. BOYER answered yes. The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA)
is cited in the resolution. Section 109 relates to transferring
of authority from the secretary to the state. That might need
some clarification to maybe preempt states from arbitrarily
banning ivory that has been legally obtained.
Section 1539 specifically states that these MMPA provisions
don't apply to any Indian, Aleut, or Eskimo who resides in an
Alaska Native village and any non-Native permanent resident in
an Alaska Native village. That could be extended to their by-
products.
4:04:08 PM
SENATOR OLSON said he was open to questions on this resolution
that is very important to the people of western and northern
Alaska where legally obtained ivory has been taken by the local
population and made into beautiful handcrafted items.
SENATOR STEDMAN said he liked the resolution, and asked how
states that make presently owned ivory illegal deal with it. Do
they have to turn it in, and what about the things in
collections and on grandma's coffee table?
MS. BOYER answered it varies state by state. It has to be
reported to Fish and Wildlife Services in one state; for others
it's okay to have as long as it's older than 1972.
SENATOR OLSON added that most people who have private
collections have been grandfathered in, especially if the
collections were obtained before 1972 when the MMPA went into
effect. In most states the general law is you can keep it, but
not sell or barter it for anything else.
SENATOR STEDMAN asked if tourists can buy Alaska artifacts and
legally take them back to New York. What about an abandoned
item?
SENATOR OLSON answered if ivory is not raw and crafted into
something, in general you can take it back to the state you came
from, but in some states it has to be reported to U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS).
SENATOR GARDNER asked if his intention was to have the
exemptions apply to every state preemptively or only to federal
law with regards to the further resolve on page 2, line 14.
4:07:24 PM
SENATOR OLSON said he would like the Alaska congressional
delegation to exempt all of it across the states.
4:08:13 PM
SUSIE SILOOK, representing herself, Tulalip, Washington,
supported SJR 4. She is originally from Gamble, Alaska, and is a
member of an artist advocacy group for Alaska Natives against
the bans on ivory. This issue began for her when she heard
Hawaii was banning walrus ivory, also. They told Hawaii that
Alaska Natives are exempted under MMPA, but they were banned
anyway. There is a lot of confusion about the bans. Some items
are not banned, but people think they are. So, there is a de
facto ban going on anyway. She has been told by both businesses
and artists that the market is way down, so it is already
hurting the market.
Her research has revealed that these bans are an overreach by
wildlife groups involved with the elephant ivory ban, which she
has nothing against, but you don't have to ban all ivory
worldwide, which their advertising says.
MS. SILOOK said another issue is that it is hard to distinguish
between the ivories, but she has a written document from the
USFWS saying that one can absolutely distinguish between walrus
and elephant ivory.
4:12:53 PM
ALICE BIOFF, Kawerak Inc., Nome, Alaska, supported SJR 4. She is
a member of the Alaska State Council of the Arts. She is a
tribal member of the Native Village Koyukuk and grew up in Nome.
She has been employed as a business planning specialist for
Kawerak, the regional non-profit consortium of tribes for the
Bering Straits region. She is privileged to work with artists
entrepreneurs within the communities and the Council provides
tools and resources to assist artists in continuing their work
so they can sustain themselves, their families, and their
communities.
Walrus ivory harvested during subsistence hunting is one of the
main materials artists entrepreneurs use to carve into unique
traditional art work that has been recognized for its amazing
craftsmanship throughout the world. These artists are economic
development drivers in their communities and she sees firsthand
the economic impact selling ivory has in the communities, but
most importantly how the arts and crafts made with ivory keep
traditions alive and strong: beautiful work being passed down
from one generation to the next. Their art is woven into who
they are as indigenous people, and having access to those
materials is vital.
MS. BIOFF said it would be a shame to see their ability to sell
ivory collapse because of a lack of understanding of their
culture that is unique and has a history of customs and
traditions of working with nature and an ability to successfully
self-manage a resource such as walrus. Please educate those who
do not understand this, she urged. She thanked all the sponsors
for bringing this resolution forward.
4:15:28 PM
JOHN WAGHIYI, representing himself, Savoonga, Alaska, said he is
a life-long subsistence provider for his family and community,
and supported SJR 4. He said the State of Alaska needs to help
educate and advocate for the indigenous community to make sure
that their guaranteed right of survival is protected. He said
St. Lawrence Island people are the only people in the world that
harvest walrus - first - as a subsistence resource. It helps
them maintain spiritual, physical, and psychological needs that
keep them knowing who they are. They harvest more walrus than
any other people in the world. The walrus ivory has been used
for thousands of years and is used exclusively to help
supplement their subsistence way of life.
4:18:12 PM
DERA METALF, Program Director, Eskimo Walrus Commission, Nome,
Alaska, supported SJR 4. She said the Walrus Commission has been
around since 1978. She also serves on the Marine Mammal
Commission as their special advisor on Native affairs. Alaska
Natives are already facing difficulties with harvesting walrus
and pressures because of climate change, and she wonders if
these communities can even afford to continue hunting. But
hunting is fundamental to the coastal communities from the meat
to the blubber, skin to organs, and food to processing skin and
tusks that are used in boats, guns, and jewelry, and
handicrafts. These are critically important to them.
She added that with the ice cover diminishing and changing as it
has for the past few years, their hunters have to travel further
distances to hunt. Walrus defines not only their local economies
and way of life, but their food group resources and their
cultural traditions including arts and crafts.
CHAIR BISHOP closed public testimony and held SJR 4 in
committee.
4:22:00 PM
At ease
HB 18-RACE CLASSICS
4:22:54 PM
CHAIR BISHOP called the meeting back to order and announced
consideration of HB 18.
4:22:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DANIEL ORTIZ, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau,
Alaska, sponsor of HB 18, introduced himself.
ELIZABETH BOLLING, staff to Representative Daniel Ortiz, Alaska
State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, introduced herself.
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ said HB 18 is a simple, straight-forward
race classics bill. While it is simple and straight-forward, it
is also necessary for the Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce to
obtain a race classic permit as the term "race classic" is so
narrowly defined in statute as to provide only for the Mt.
Marathon race classic held by the Seward Chamber of Commerce.
The Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce also has an interest in
obtaining a race classic permit for a human race, the Race to
Alaska, which is a non-motorized boat race beginning in Port
Townsend, Washington, and ending in Ketchikan, Alaska. It is a
750-mile race, and the idea of attaching this to a race classic
permit will allow the Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce to do a
little fundraising by providing the opportunity for people to
wager on the exact day, hour, minute, and second of the arrival
of the first-place boat.
4:25:14 PM
BILL SWIFT, Executive Director, Greater Ketchikan Chamber of
Commerce, Ketchikan, Alaska, said the Chamber unanimously
supports HB 18. Their research has determined that specific
legislative authorization is necessary to have a race classic,
and HB 18 gives the Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce permission to
conduct a charitable community fund raiser of this type based
around the Race to Alaska by including this event within the
state's existing definition of a "race classic." It specifies
that this event would be administered by the Ketchikan Chamber
of Commerce.
The tradition of classics is a fun and common form of Alaskana,
and a great many non-profit entities throughout Alaska have been
given permission by the legislature to conduct classic fund
raisers of this type: dog mushers, rain classics, fish derbies,
moose derbies, and goose and canned salmon classics.
MR. SWIFT said there is a strong precedent for the Chamber to
host events of this type. Similar events are hosted by the
Chamber organizations for Juneau, Fairbanks, Kenai, Seward,
Petersburg, Delta, and Big Lake. He thanked the legislature for
taking time to consider their request for what is a relatively
small administrative change that is necessary and does not cost
the state anything.
4:28:16 PM
CHELSEA GOUCHER, Vice President, Ketchikan Chamber Board of
Directors, Ketchikan, Alaska, wholeheartedly supported HB 18.
She related that she is currently employed as an account
representative for Alaska Marine Lines, but in the past she was
employed by the Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce as executive
director. Representative Ortiz's bill would allow the Ketchikan
Chamber of Commerce to raise money by operating and
administering a race classic with a gaming permit as is
currently done by the Seward Chamber with the Mount Marathon
Race Classic.
MS. COUCHER said she also supports Mr. Swift's letter of support
adding that the monies it generates can be put towards projects
the Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce has undertaken recently such
as workforce development initiatives, economic and community
development programs, lighting of the town Christmas tree and
the July 4th parade, employee wellness training, informational
programs, networking events to encourage a vibrant economy,
assistance to new and developing businesses, hosting special
programs such as the Ketchikan Marine Industry Council,
fostering the Ketchikan Young Professionals Network, and
advocating for a sound business plan for Ketchikan and the
entire state, as well as doing close work with organizations
like Southeast Conference, the Alaska Chamber, the Alaska Forest
Association, and the Alaska Miners Association. These activities
are self-funded by the Chamber which relies on very little
government money or grants and depends primarily on member dues
and fund-raisers to function.
She said HB 18 would help sustain these efforts despite
decreases elsewhere in the community, state, and local funding.
In fact, a race classic would likely attract outside money as
racers, families and friends, sports fans, and residents of Port
Townsend, and the race's community of origin can buy a chance to
win this newest of race classics.
4:30:55 PM
JASON CUSTER, member, Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce, Ketchikan,
Alaska, supported HB 18. He agreed with comments by Mr. Swift
and Ms. Goucher. He said the Chamber is probably the largest and
most diverse non-profit organization in Ketchikan with 274
members.
The benefits of HB 18 to their organization and community would
include providing a new source of locally generated, self-
generated revenue for community projects, which otherwise would
not be present. It supports community development and economic
development activities and programs. HB 18 will help get
Alaskans and residents of Ketchikan excited about contributing
to community projects and initiatives, promoting a culture of
community giving and self-sufficiency. This would not cost the
state anything, but creates a new source of funding for
community projects and initiatives.
MR. CUSTER said numerous Chambers around the state have been
given the ability to administer similar programs including
Juneau, Fairbanks, Petersburg, and Seward.
4:33:15 PM
SENATOR STEDMAN said HB 18 is a good idea. This race is a good
way for a community to generate money and also have fun. He
noted that this one-sentence bill is the shortest he has seen
and it has a zero fiscal note, too.
SENATOR MACKINNON referred to the games of chance and contest of
skills statute and said it seems that an entire chapter was
created to say okay to gaming one issue at a time, and she
wondered, given the current recession the state is in and folks,
non-profits specifically, trying to work for themselves, why
they should continue to have one agency and one non-profit at a
time come forward to ask for permission to do something which
requires years of advance planning. Because as she understands
it, they still have to comply with the same rules. Is there any
reason the door was not opened wider? Are they just complying
with this past practice for all the individual requests?
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ replied that they are just complying with
past practice.
CHAIR BISHOP found no further comments and closed public
testimony. He held HB 18 in committee to await Senator
MacKinnon's amendment.
4:36:04 PM
CHAIR BISHOP adjourned the Senate Community and Regional Affairs
Standing Committee meeting at 4:36 p.m.