Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/22/1996 09:43 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
MINUTES
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
22 February 1996
9:43 A.M.
TAPES
SFC-96, #29, Sides 1 & 2
CALL TO ORDER
Senator Rick Halford, Co-chair, convened the meeting at
approximately 9:43 A.M.
PRESENT
In addition to Co-chairman Halford, Co-chairman Frank and
Senators Phillips, Sharp, Donley, Rieger were present.
Senator Zharoff arrived shortly thereafter
Also Attending: Senator Drue Pearce; Representative Terry
Martin and aide Tom Anderson; Diane Shriner, Division of
Elections; Larry Campbell, University of Alaska testified
by teleconference; Sherman Ernouf, aide to Senator Tim
Kelly; Mike Greany, Director, Legislative Finance Division;
and aides to committee members.
SUMMARY INFORMATION
SENATE BILL NO. 239
"An Act relating to telephone advertisements,
solicitations, and directory listings."
Testimony was given by the sponsor of the bill, Senator
Steve Rieger. Amendment #1, submitted by the Senator was
MOVED and FAILED ADOPTION. Amendment #2, submitted by the
Senator was MOVED and ADOPTED. SCS CSSB 239(FIN) was
REPORTED OUT with zero fiscal note from the Department of
Law.
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 31
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State
of Alaska relating to voter ratification of legislative
approval of amendments of the Alaska Statehood Act
affecting an interest of the State of Alaska under that
Act.
Testimony was given by the sponsor of the bill, Senator Drue
Pearce. The bill was HELD in committee for further
discussion.
HOUSE BILL NO. 42
"An Act relating to absentee voting, to electronic
transmission of absentee ballot applications, and to
delivery of ballots to absentee ballot applicants by
electronic transmission, and enacting a definition of
the term 'state election' for purposes of absentee
voting."
Testimony was given by the sponsor of the bill,
Representative Terry Martin, as well as his aide, Tom
Anderson; and Diane Shriner of the Division of Elections.
It was MOVED by Senator Zharoff to add "immediate effective
date" and APPROVED. Without objection SCS CSHB 42(FIN) was
REPORTED OUT with a fiscal note from the Office of the
Governor, Division of Elections, $37.6.
SENATE BILL NO. 134
"An Act establishing an endowment for the Robert B.
Atwood journalism chair at the University of Alaska
Anchorage; and providing for an effective date."
Testimony was given by Mr. Sherman Ernouf, aide to Senator
Tim Kelly, sponsor of the bill. Mr. Larry Campbell from the
University of Alaska testified via teleconference. Senator
Phillips MOVED SB 134 and it was REPORTED OUT with Senate
Finance Committee zero fiscal note.
SENATE BILL NO. 239
"An Act relating to telephone advertisements,
solicitations, and directory listings."
Testimony was given by the sponsor of the bill, Senator
Steve Rieger. He advised that the bill would allow a
residential telephone subscriber to have a notation placed
in a directory expressing a desire to not receive telephone
solicitations. With reference to Amendment #1 the chairman
of Labor and Commerce Committee requested the scope of the
bill no longer include opinion polls. This would prohibit
automated polling and interconnects with some Federal laws.
Reference was made to Amendment #2 and the Alaska Telephone
Association requested amendments put in by the House be
offered here to keep the two bills the same. They felt they
should not have out-of-pocket costs to do this notation in
the directory. This should be submitted and approved by the
APUC as an extra charge.
Senator Phillips wanted to know what triggered the
introduction of this bill. Senator Rieger said that there
has been on-going low level complaints where everyone has
been bothered by calls and would like to have flexibility to
control their lives a little more and place that notice in
the directory. It does not prohibit commercial solicitation
but rather allows an individual to opt to prohibit
solicitation to themselves. Senator Phillips inquired if
this would extend to U.S. mail. Senator Frank noted that
some people have "no soliciting" signs on their mailbox or
house. Senator Rieger further explained that when the
telephone rings one has no idea if it is an emergency call
or something you do not want to answer. It is reasonable to
be able to have some control because sometimes these calls
are very inconvenient and frustrating. The unlisted number
does not prevent solicitation because it is not always a
case of using a phone book but rather a computer set of just
telephone numbers provided in electronic format by the phone
company to a solicitor. GCI requested an amendment that
they be allowed to provide no solicitation information in
the electronic format.
Senator Frank asked about the penalties and the costs
allowed to be deducted by APUC. Why would they have to have
this specifically allowed to be deducted from their
expenses? Senator Rieger said this was a specific request
by the telephone association and explained how they
interpreted it. The extent of the costs would be clear and
not be spread as part of an overall residential rate. The
cost would be borne by the one requesting the service. In
regards to the penalties there is a section of the Alaska
Statutes called Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection and this just adds to a long list of items
already included.
Senator Sharp commented that this is different than the mail
wherein the mail is being paid for by the sender; the
telephone is something an individual pays for and therefore
this bill would give the customer some control over what
they pay for and who has access to use it for their own
commercial benefit. Senator Sharp elaborated as an example
of the high number of calls one might receive between 5:00
p.m. and 7:00 p.m. and that this is out of control. He did
note that charitable organizations were excluded from this
bill.
Senator Phillips discussed the deletion of opinion polling
and that it was also a form of solicitation. Senator Rieger
informed the committee that there was an expressed
permission in the Federal Law permitting computerized
polling and also the Telecommunications Act of 1991. Co-
chairman Halford wanted to know if this ruling under Federal
Law would supercede any State law. Senator Frank said that
if that was the case our law would just be invalidated.
Senator Rieger MOVED amendment #1 and asked unanimous
consent. Senator Frank asked who would enforce this
amendment and felt that if it was contrary to Federal Law
then they should be the ones to enforce it. Senator
Phillips reiterated the fact that he opposes the amendment
because if people do not want to be bothered then they
should not be subject to any form of solicitation.
Amendment #1 FAILED adoption.
Senator Rieger MOVED amendment #2 and asked unanimous
consent. Without objection amendment #2 was ADOPTED.
Senator Rieger MOVED SCS CSSB 239(FIN) and without objection
it was REPORTED OUT with individual recommendations and zero
fiscal notes from the Department of Law and the Department
of Commerce and Economic Development.
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 31
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State
of Alaska relating to voter ratification of legislative
approval of amendments of the Alaska Statehood Act
affecting an interest of the State of Alaska under that
Act.
Testimony was given by the sponsor of the resolution,
Senator Drue Pearce. She referred to a close association
with the Legislature last year in working on the ANWR issue
in attempting to get Congress to make the right decision in
opening the ANWR to oil and gas leasing. This
constitutional amendment would attempt to answer any
questions regarding what has to happen in order for Alaska
to accept any amendment to the statehood compact. There has
to be some way that the action can be amended either through
the legislature by law or through a vote of the people. She
referred to AS 01.10.110 and read it into the record. There
is concern in the Legislature and people around the State
that we should never allow just the Legislature to accept a
change; it should always go to a vote of the people. SJR 31
would put a constitutional amendment on the ballot this
November that would put in our constitution an order to
accept a change to the Statehood Act. It would only become
effective after the Legislature passed a resolution putting
the question on the ballot and a majority of the people in
the State had voted in the affirmative. She advised, after
checking with the drafter of the resolution, the language
"qualified voters" means voters who actually went to the
polls and not a majority of all eligible voters in the
State. Senator Phillips wanted to know if there was a
better way to phrase this and Senator Pearce advised that
this was the standard language. The key word is "qualified"
which means that they came to the election and voted.
Senator Phillips expressed concern this was a constitutional
amendment and care must be taken. Senator Pearce suggested
Mr. Chenoweth could be contacted to see if there was clearer
language.
Senator Rieger asked if there was discussion about the word
"legislates" on page 1, line 9. Senator Pearce advised that
this was language changed by the Judiciary Committee and the
chairman of that committee would have to be asked if he
discussed the matter with Mr. Chenoweth. Senator Rieger
also asked about "affects an interest" and if that is
different from "altering an interest". Senator Pearce said
that the "affects" language was taken directly out of the
statehood compact and mirrors the language in AS 01.10.110.
Senator Frank said he is also concerned about the wording
and asked that if the Legislature adopted a resolution and
then it was ratified by a vote of the people, is that right?
Senator Pearce said that it is the process set forth in this
amendment. Senator Frank said that it should be reworded
and the people of the State of Alaska should get to make the
choice and then it could be followed up with a requirement
that a resolution has to be forwarded to the people by the
Legislature so that it is clear. If it was made more clear
to the people it would be more well supported by them.
Senator Pearce again said that Mr. Chenoweth could provide
more comfortable language. The chairman of the Judiciary
Committee had an interest in putting something on the ballot
without the Legislature ever acting like it affirmed the
action. But the Legislature will always have the
responsibility to put the question on the ballot. If the
Legislature does not then they have turned down an amendment
without the people ever voting on it. People would be
pleased that they had the opportunity to vote before a
change could be accepted.
Senator Donley said he did not know how the judiciary
language would work. Senator Pearce said that the
Legislature has to pass a resolution to put the question on
the ballot. Discussion between Senator Pearce and Senator
Donley followed regarding two-thirds and majority vote for
passage of the joint resolution. Senator Pearce said that
it was her intent that if the Legislature chose not to put
the question on the ballot then the Legislature has not
accepted the change. Senator Donley commented that if the
question is put on the ballot it has to be in the form of
the affirmative. The Legislature has to act to give its
approval. Further discussion followed regarding what form
could be used to put the amendment on the ballot. Senator
Donley felt the question should be posed in a neutral
manner. Senator Pearce further advised that she has been
told by her caucus that Alaskans will never accept any
change regarding the state compact act and Senator Phillips
concurred.
Senator Rieger asked if there would be a situation where
there might be a ratification of a proposed change before
there is a law enacted by Congress. Senator Pearce said no
because the statehood compact is a Federal document. The
State cannot amend it. Only Congress can. We want to be
able to assert our right to deny their changes. There would
be no question to put before the people if Congress acted on
something before the Legislature passed it. The Legislature
can always ask the Congress to do something they ask without
the vote of people.
Co-chairman Halford asked if there were a hurry to make
something effective is the limitation to a general election
something necessary? Senator Pearce said perhaps not and
that leeway should be given to include a special election.
Co-chairman Halford believed that "at the next general
election" could be deleted and it would essentially then be
a "general or special election" and would still require a
majority of the registered voters voting on the question.
Senator Zharoff wanted to know if this was consistent with
other states and Senator Pearce said there may be other
states that have had court suits over their statehood
compacts. Senator Zharoff asked at what point does Federal
law supercede State law? Senator Pearce said that Congress
does not have the power to supercede our compact with the
Federal government. The compact called for a vote of the
people of Alaska before it was accepted. From the compact
case whether or not the Feds can do something to us without
our approval is the whole point. Congress said they have
superceded in many cases and it's their law. She indicated
she would be willing to work with those members and Mr.
Chenoweth who have brought up questions regarding specific
language and try to clarify them. Senator Phillips said
that he generally agreed with the intent of this
constitutional amendment. In 1958 the voters in the
territory of Alaska approved the statehood compact act and
it would take the voters to undo it, not us. In this case
the voters have absolute jurisdiction.
Co-chairman Halford will HOLD SJR 31 for further
discussion and asked Senator Pearce for a proposed CS.
HOUSE BILL NO. 42
"An Act relating to absentee voting, to electronic
transmission of absentee ballot applications, and to
delivery of ballots to absentee ballot applicants by
electronic transmission, and enacting a definition of
the term 'state election' for purposes of absentee
voting."
Testimony was given by Representative Terry Martin, sponsor
of the bill. He stated the intent of his bill is to make
use of modern technology in order to get people to vote.
Alaska is the largest state in the union and has many
travellers in a given day. Many of them may unexpectedly
have to leave with the intent to vote on election day but at
the last minute, due to some emergency some normal everyday
unexpected things happen and one finds they want to vote.
Approximately ten states participate in electronic voting.
During the Gulf War Alaska accepted over 200 applications
from Alascom personnel and military personnel. The U.S.
Justice Department on behalf of the U.S. Defense Department
upgraded the rules where military people could have access
to voting by electronic means. Alascom, which are leaders
in their field, helped work out the system nation-wide
giving military people the right to vote. Before we were
only talking about fax and now the Division of Elections
wants other electronic means because it is all moving so
fast with e-mail, cc mail and internet. It is so easy and
so quick to get people the right to vote.
Senator Phillips inquired as to how it would be enforced to
keep people from cheating. Representative Martin indicated
that it would now be more difficult for someone to cheat by
electronic mail. They have to request to vote at least four
days in advance; they have to be identified in the office
before a ballot is even sent out to them. The Division of
Election still worries about people walking into the local
precincts who are not clearly identified all the time.
There will be more screening on the individual now. Senator
Phillips posed a hypothetical case for voting in April.
Representative Martin said that this bill would allow a
request to the city clerks' office for an absentee ballot
within four days of the election. This can be done by mail,
fax or e-mail. A ballot would be returned for where the
individual is qualified for. It is all taken care of
electronically. It began with fax but they did not want to
limit it because now there are so many quicker ways;
internet, e-mail, cc mail.
Mr. Tom Anderson, aide to Representative Terry Martin,
advised that one could use mail or electronic transmission
at any stage as long as the seven-day rule for mail and the
four-day rule for electronic transmission is abided by in
terms of applying for the ballot. Senator Phillips asked if
this could be done twice and Representative Terry Miller
advised that this is very well scrutinized. All absentee
ballots are kept in a separate area. There is always a
cross reference. Absentees are checked out by voter
registration number, precinct and district. They get only
one vote.
Senator Donley wanted to know how it was verified that the
person who faxed or transmitted the vote in was the same
person who was sent the absentee ballot. Representative
Martin said that verification is first, by voter
registration number. That is the same number that is sent
out to you when you request the ballot. Second, that number
is your code number to come back in. It could also be done
by signature. The department if very conscientious. That
is part of the reason for the fiscal note of $38,000 so an
individual can be trained in electronic means and the method
can be double-checked. There will be more scrutiny than
walk-ins. Mr. Anderson stated the Division of Elections is
still formulating at what level they will operate the
electronically transmitted reception. There will be one
person, hence the fiscal note, and they will be located in
Juneau. They will adopt procedures that will allow
transmission by fax only, by computer or a cc mail version.
It will all be matched by code, voter ID and signature.
Senator Donley asked about the two witnesses for absentee
ballots and how would this work. Representative Martin
advised that the same would still apply.
Senator Zharoff stated that after faxing in ones tabulation
the hard copy then could be mailed in. Representative
Martin said that it could be done but at this time the most
important thing is that the electronic ballot be in by
election night. Mr. Anderson further advised that this is
not a substitute for absentee voting nor is it a substitute
for voting. Hopefully people could mail in a timely fashion
however, there are numerous problems that could occur and
this is merely an option.
Diane Shriner, Division of Elections, was invited to join
the committee. The Division does not stand in support or
opposition to this bill. She explained that when the bill
was first introduced electronic transmission was limited to
fax. It was requested that the Department of Law clarify
the term "electronic transmission". There is no problem
requesting ballots by cc mail, electronic mail or other
modern means, but the witnessing and certification of the
ballot is important. It may not be possible at this point
to provide that verification by cc mail. Co-chairman
Halford asked if this was in regards to the actual voting
and not in getting the ballot. Mrs. Shriner indicated that
their understanding was that the vote would be made by fax
machine. She also referred to the waiver of some secrecy
but indicated they would still try to protect the voter.
Senator Phillips related a hypothetical case. Mrs. Shriner
advised that they would provide instructions on anything
sent that could be returned by fax that the person should
provide us with, information on how to reach them and the
person should wait for and receive the notice of
transmission. Senator Phillips asked what would happen in
the case of a power outage. Mrs. Shriner said it could be
checked with other states using this method and see how they
were handling it. She will research the matter and provide
a report back to the committee. Co-chairman Halford and Mrs.
Shriner discussed regulatory authority to come up with a
system designed to provide security using e-mail and other
computer transmissions. At present the fax machine meets
all security criteria.
Senator Zharoff asked how it would be determined which
ballot would be valid if a person voted more than one time.
Mrs. Shriner advised that this matter was covered by statute
and there is a process for dealing with duplicate ballots.
Senator Zharoff discussed amending the bill to include an
immediate effective date. Senator Donley would rather the
department have enough time to set up proper procedures.
Co-chairman Halford comments on regulations. Tom Anderson
advised that Representative Martin's intent was to get this
into effect as soon as possible. Senator Donley indicated
that there was no specific time frame indicated and the
division should be allowed some flexibility in case of any
problems. Co-chairman Halford advised that if the bill is
left without an effective date it will take effect ninety
days after signature. That would still be in time for the
primary election. Senator Zharoff felt that there would be
less confusion if there were an effective date on the bill.
Senator Zharoff MOVED to amend the bill to include an
effective date. Mr. Anderson agreed to the amendment.
Without objection the amendment to include an effective date
was ADOPTED.
Senator Sharp MOVED S CSHB 42(FIN) out of committee with
individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal note and
without objection it was REPORTED OUT with individual
recommendations and accompanying fiscal note of $37.6 from
the Division of Elections.
SENATE BILL NO. 134
"An Act establishing an endowment for the Robert B.
Atwood journalism chair at the University of Alaska
Anchorage; and providing for an effective date."
Testimony was given by Mr. Sherman Ernouf, aide to Senator
Tim Kelly, sponsor of the bill. Bob Atwood's contribution
to the State of Alaska and the community is immense. This
legislation would honor him by establishing the Robert B.
Atwood journalism chair at the University of Alaska
Anchorage. This chair has been in existence for the past
fifteen years through generous contributions by Mr. Atwood
which total more than $1 million. Through this endowment a
mechanism will be set up for both public and private
entities to match contributions from Mr. Atwood to
permanently fund the chair.
Co-chairman Halford said that in prior discussions with the
sponsor basically he wanted the bill to be considered to
establish the chair regardless of whether or not any fiscal
note were added. He noted that the University came back
with a $2 million fiscal note.
Testimony was given by Larry Campbell from the University of
Alaska Anchorage via teleconference. He re-iterated that
the chair was supported by Bob Atwood for the past fifteen
years in the approximate amount of $1.5 million. It has
been an advantage and benefit to communication students in
the University of Alaska system. It has brought to Alaska
prominent, nationally known, professional communicators from
all over the lower '48. It is proposed that the State and
Bob Atwood join in partnership with a final endowment from
himself to establish this in perpetuity. This is an
investment as well as an improvement in mass communications
in the State of Alaska; journalism students, advertising
students, public relations students and broadcast students
have benefited from the visiting professors here in
Anchorage.
Senator Donley asked about authorization of the fiscal note
from the University. Co-chairman Halford said the fiscal
note would not be considered at this time. The passage of
this bill will just allow the board of regents to establish
the chair.
Senator Phillips MOVED SB 134 without fiscal note. No
objection being heard SB 134 was REPORTED OUT of committee
with individual recommendations and Senate Finance zero
fiscal note.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:00 A.M.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|