Legislature(2001 - 2002)
05/04/2001 10:52 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
May 04, 2001
10:52 AM
TAPES
SFC-01 # 95, Side A
SFC 01 # 95, Side B
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Pete Kelly convened the meeting at approximately 10:52 AM.
PRESENT
Senator Dave Donley, Co-Chair
Senator Pete Kelly, Co-Chair
Senator Jerry Ward, Vice Chair
Senator Loren Leman
Senator Lyda Green
Senator Gary Wilken
Senator Alan Austerman
Senator Donny Olson
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Also Attending: SENATOR JOHN COWDERY; KURT PARKAN, Deputy
Commissioner, Department of Transportation and Public Facilities;
DEVON MITCHELL, Debt Manager, Treasury Division and Executive
Director, Alaska Municipal Bond Bank Authority, Department of
Revenue; DENISE HENDERSON, staff to Representative Pete Kott; GUY
BELL, Director, Division of Retirement and Benefits, Department of
Administration; TIM ROGERS, Legislative Program Coordinator,
Municipality of Anchorage; JIM NORDLUND, Director, Division of
Public Assistance, Department of Health and Social Services;
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COHGILL, JR.; AV GROSS;
Attending via Teleconference: From Anchorage: DAVID EBERLE, PE,
Regional Director, Central Region, Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities;
SUMMARY INFORMATION
SB 218-AIRPORTS:BONDS/CONSTR.FUND/FACILITY CHARG
The Committee heard from the sponsor, the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities and Department of Revenue. The
bill moved from Committee.
HB 242-TRS & PERS REEMPLOY & MED BENEFITS; COLA
The Committee heard from the sponsor, the Department of
Administration and the Municipality of Anchorage. A committee
substitute was adopted and the bill was held in Committee.
HB 142-AK TEMP. ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AMENDMENTS
The Committee heard from the Senate Health Education and Social
Services Committee and the Department of Health and Social
Services. The bill moved from Committee.
HB 193-MODIFIED BLANKET PRIMARY ELECTION
The Committee heard from the sponsor and a former state Attorney
General.
HB 234-TOBACCO SETTLEM'T: BONDS & SMOKING PROGRAM
This bill was not in Committee in time for the scheduled hearing
and therefore was not heard.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 218(TRA) am
"An Act relating to international airports revenue bonds and
requiring that the spending plan for the International
Airports Construction Fund include information about the
amounts spent during the previous fiscal year for cost
overruns on certain projects and the identification of time
delays on certain projects; relating to customer facility
charges to fund facilities in airports to be constructed
without using international airport revenue bonds; and
providing for an effective date."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
SENATOR JOHN COWDERY testified that the bill raised the limit of
the bonding authority of the airports to $477,900,000. He reminded
the Committee of legislation from a few sessions back related to
airport bonds, which he said, was on-going. He shared that "all the
airlines" support SB 218. He pointed out this legislation requires
no tax dollars and instead, the airlines would contribute from
their revenues generated from landing fees.
Senator Austerman noted that the cost of the project at the Ted
Stevens International Airport in Anchorage has continued to "spiral
up" and he wanted to know if this legislation would apply to the
existing project and related cost overruns or toward a new project.
He pointed out that although the revenue for these bonds is not
received through taxes, the landing fees are considered a business
expense and the cost is passed along to the consumer in the ticket
prices.
Senator Cowdery answered that this bill does not apply to previous
projects, but rather new projects. He noted that the airports in
both Fairbanks and Anchorage would qualify for funding under this
legislation. He stated that the purpose of this legislation is to
utilize the revenues collected from landing fees by the airlines
for new projects. Otherwise, he explained, these revenues would be
spent on the existing upgrade project. He noted this legislation
allows the funds to be received earlier than the fifteen years it
would take if not for this legislation.
KURT PARKAN, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities, added that this legislation provides for a
bonding package to fund the annual capital improvement project
(CIP) at the airport system. He explained this package was agreed
upon during the previous year's negotiations between the airlines
and the department in which the airlines requested a five-year CIP
for their consideration and the authority to issue bonds to fund
these improvements rather then the current method of "cash funding"
the projects each year.
Mr. Parkan detailed the funding for these projects include the
costs of environmental procedures, securing taxiways and equipment
purchases. He pointed out the general annual CIP is unrelated to
the on-going terminal upgrade project with the exception of four
projects that are similar to the terminal project but were not part
of the original project's "scope". He referred to a letter from the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities to Senator
Cowdery that identifies these key projects.
Mr. Parkan shared that the agreement upon this debt financing
method for CIP projects was reached because the airlines wanted
some certainty as to their annual costs. He noted that under the
current system, the airlines incur "spikes" in landing fees, which
would not happen under the proposed method. He informed this is a
method of financing utilized for many airports across the country.
Senator Austerman asked the status of the existing five-year
terminal upgrade project.
Mr. Parkan responded that the proposed bond package in this
legislation would fund the first two years of the five-year CIP
plan; the first year being FY 01. He explained that approximately
$142,000,000 would be added to existing debt to cover these costs.
Senator Austerman asked if the legislature would then return to
this issue within three years to consider authorizing an increase
to the bonding limit for this project.
Mr. Parkan affirmed a second request would be made to issue bonds
to fund the final three years of the CIP project.
Senator Ward asked if any projects contained in this bond proposal
replace any of the anticipated bond proposals under the extension
of the airport bonds.
Mr. Parkan answered a question of Senator Ward, repeating that the
proposed bond package contains no projects that are currently part
of the on-going airport extension and upgrade project. He relayed
testimony he gave to the Senate Transportation Committee stating
that there are several proposed projects that relate to the on-
going terminal upgrade, but that do not replace a current project.
He explained these projects were not included in the original
expansion but are planned to coincide with the current terminal
projects. He gave an example of hazardous material asbestos
abatement, noting the extent of the asbestos found when the upgrade
construction began was not anticipated. He said $5 million has been
incorporated into the proposed bond package to address asbestos
removal. He noted an access control system, a medium voltage
project and some furnishings, are other projects related to, but
not replacements of, the on-going terminal upgrade project.
Senator Ward asked if Senator Cowdery has the same understanding of
this legislation as Mr. Parkan testified.
Senator Cowdery reminded that he has been working on this matter
for several years and had sponsored the legislation authorizing
bond issuance for the original terminal expansion and upgrade
project. He told that the department had estimated the amount of
asbestos that might be present, however much more was found during
demolition. He stated it was not his intention to "pay for
anything that we'd authorized before" however, there were cost
overruns with the on-going project.
Senator Ward opined, "That's the heart of the thing." He emphasized
the $5 million cost overrun was not due to earthquakes, footings,
etc. He qualified he was unsure if the overruns were a result of
fast-tracking the project. He stressed he wanted to ensure the
proposed bond package is not funding mistakes that were made during
the original project. He was concerned if this were so, it would
not be possible to identify and rectify those mistakes.
Mr. Parkan understood Senator Ward's concerns and noted that this
legislation does not cover any of the costs associated with the
delays encountered over the permitting and errors in seismic design
work. He expressed the intent to provide full disclosure of the
four or five proposed projects that are related to the terminal
project to the legislature. He assured that the remaining projects
in the bond package are unrelated to the terminal upgrade and could
not be changed because the bonds would be issued specific to those
projects. He informed that the department has relayed the same
assurances to the airline companies.
Senator Cowdery continued that he understood the problems with the
terminal upgrade project are eight to nine months old and are
related to delays. He recalled that during legislation authorizing
bond issuance for the terminal project, the department assured that
$10 million of insurance was purchased to cover any delays. He was
uncertain whether $10 million would be adequate to cover all the
costs and he did not know where the remaining funds would come
from. He surmised that Senator Ward was concerned that funds from
the new bond package would be utilized to cover these.
Senator Hoffman requested a copy of the list of proposed projects
in the bond package.
Mr. Parkan distributed a letter the department sent to the Senate
Transportation Committee. [Copy on file.]
Senator Austerman expressed concern, saying he did not support
moving the bill from Committee without documentation that shows the
projects funded in the original bond package, and the proposed
projects that would be funded through this legislation.
Mr. Parkan responded that the letter should address Senator
Austerman's concerns. He stated the "whole purpose of this package
is as a result of the airlines' request that we use debt financing
for the annual CIP."
Senator Austerman did not oppose this method of financing, but
stressed he did not have enough information to make a decision
regarding the bill.
Senator Leman questioned the fiscal note from the Department of
Revenue. He wanted to know if the sale of these bonds was
considered in relationship to a $52,000 request for the FY 02
budget.
DEVON MITCHELL, Debt Manager, Treasury Division and Executive
Director, Alaska Municipal Bond Bank Authority, Department of
Revenue, answered that the $52,000 is a FY 01 Supplemental budget
request related to the Alaska Municipal Bond Bank Authority, which
he informed is a separate entity.
Senator Leman next asked why the travel and contractual services
were funded with general funds.
Mr. Mitchell replied these expenses are anticipated prior to the
issuance of the bonds and are to cover the costs of the efforts to
market and sell the bonds.
Senator Leman asked if the Department of Revenue recovers these
funds after bonds are sold.
Mr. Mitchell answered it does not.
Co-Chair Donley asked if the Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities testimony is that none of the bonding proceeds
would be used to pay for corrections to the problems experienced to
date with the terminal project.
Mr. Parkan referred to material distributed that lists those
proposed projects that are related to the terminal upgrade. [Copy
on file.] He clarified some of the proposed projects, such as with
the hazardous materials are related to the on-going project.
Co-Chair Donley asked how the additional costs, related to
compliance with building codes, that are part of the terminal
project are being paid.
DAVID EBERLE, PE, Regional Director, Central Region, Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities, testified via teleconference
from Anchorage as the project manager on the terminal upgrade
project. He stated that the deficiency corrections are being funded
from the overall program contingency, which he said is part of the
original program. He noted the department has an insurance policy
to cover design flaws and that a claim would be filed. He assured
of the department's intent of "vigorously pursuing recovery of
those costs" but cautioned this would take time.
Co-Chair Donley asked if all the legal fees related to the problems
with the terminal project were covered under the insurance policy
or if there would be a supplemental budget request the next
session.
Mr. Eberle answered that the legal fees are currently funded from
the existing project's budget. He stated that how much of these
costs are recovered depends upon the bids submitted for the
remaining work on the project and subsequently, whether there is a
supplemental budget request.
Senator Ward asked for an explanation of the insurance policy and
the process of determining the responsible party and recovering
expenses from that party.
Mr. Eberle detailed that insurance policy was purchased to "cover
the entire project" and explained it covers any design errors or
omissions related to the engineering work. He shared that the
design firms are denying responsibility, which he said is standard.
He stated that the insurance company has been notified of the
intent to file the claim. He stressed the department intends to
pursue the responsible party with assistance from the Attorney
General's Office and outside counsel. He estimated it would be two
years before the matter is concluded.
Senator Ward asked if the department is also accounting for the
cost of lost revenue due to delay of the project in its claim. He
noted the additional retail and airline space the expansion is to
provide.
Mr. Eberle responded that those costs could be calculated after the
terminal is operational and revenue is earned.
Senator Ward requested an estimate of the amount of lost revenue,
particularly for the nine months to date that the opening has been
delayed. He understood that exact figures could not be calculated
but wanted an estimate within $400 to $500.
Senator Austerman referenced the letter from the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities listing the $8.7 million for
the projects that relate to the terminal upgrade. He noted there is
a remaining amount of $134,200,000 and asked if for a detail of the
planned expenditures of these funds.
Mr. Parkan noted that this item is included in the governor's
proposed FY 02 Capital Budget legislation and stated he would
provide that information. He noted some projects are partially
funded through federal international airport improvement funds,
others are bond funded and a few are revenue-funded projects. He
pointed out environmental expenses could not be funded with bond
revenues because they are not considered an asset. He shared that
the bond revenue would be used for state match of the federal
funds.
Senator Austerman requested identification of this information in
relation to the bill.
AT EASE 11:14 AM / 11:17 AM
Senator Austerman asked why this bill was not introduced earlier in
the legislative session since the projects are contained in the
capital budget.
Mr. Parkan responded this bill, sponsored by the Senate
Transportation Committee is similar to one introduced by the
governor in January 2001.
Co-Chair Kelly noted the governor's bill has been in the Senate
Finance Committee since the first two weeks of the legislative
session.
Senator Ward added that there has been extensive discussion on the
matter of funding sources, responsibility for the delays, and
whether the terminal expansion project would essentially need to be
done twice. He expressed that although it would be at least two
years before the responsible party is determined, the citizens
would pay the price of the project delays and increased costs.
Senator Ward stressed that Senator Cowdery insisted on the new
legislation, not the Senate Transportation Committee, which
sponsored it.
Senator Hoffman noted SB 218 lists the amount of $142.9 million as
the bonding authority, but the fiscal note increases this amount by
$5 million. He asked for an explanation.
Mr. Parkan directed attention to a more current fiscal note dated
May 2, 2001. He shared that the airline industry requested $5
million be changed from bond funding to revenue funding, which he
said reduces the bond amount. It was determined that this fiscal
note was not in possession of the Committee at this time.
Mr. Parkan detailed the $5 million in question is for the
relocation costs of the airlines and was included in the
negotiations between the Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities and the airline companies.
Co-Chair Donley wanted to know where the funding comes from if it
is not bonded.
Mr. Parkan responded the monies are from the International Airports
Revenue fund. He detailed the list of proposed projects attached to
the aforementioned letter, explaining the various funding
mechanisms for each.
Mr. Eberle established for Co-Chair Donley, that he is not the
project manager of the terminal extension project, but rather the
overall program director.
Co-Chair Donley shared that he has learned that the project manager
of the terminal project is the same project manager of the Alaska
Center for the Performing Arts in Anchorage. He asked if this were
true.
Mr. Eberle replied that the project manager for the terminal
project is a Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
employee. He noted a variety of consultants are working under
contract with the state on this project. One of those consultants,
he informed is Rise Alaska and the owner of this firm had been
involved in construction of the performing arts center under a
different company name.
Co-Chair Donley asked if the contracts were competitively bid
contracts or sole source.
Mr. Eberle answered the proposals are all competitively bid.
Co-Chair Donley shared concerns with others in Anchorage about the
cost overruns incurred during construction of the arts center.
These concerns, he said, grow because the same contractor
responsible for those delays is involved in the airport project.
Mr. Eberle responded that Co-Chair Donley could review the terms of
the contract at any time.
Co-Chair Donley expressed he also wanted details of the bid
criteria and whether any consideration is given to the past
performance of a contractor.
Mr. Eberle stated he would provide the evaluation criteria and the
scores given for these bids.
Senator Leman clarified that "contractor" used in this context,
applies to professional management, engineers or other technical
service providers.
Senator Green pointed out that in the future many of these
questions would be answered in accordance to the provisions on page
2 of the committee substitute. These, she explained address
reporting requirements of expenditures, cost overruns, etc. She
stated her support of these provisions.
Senator Green offered a motion to move from Committee, CS SB 218
(TRA) with $25,000 fiscal note from the Department of Revenue.
There was no objection and the bill MOVED from Committee.
AT EASE 11:26 AM / 11:39 AM
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 242(FIN)
"An Act relating to reemployment of and medical benefits for
retired members of the teachers' retirement system and public
employees' retirement system; relating to the inclusion of
cost-of-living differentials on compensation and benefits
under the public employees' retirement system; and providing
for an effective date."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
DENISE HENDERSON, staff to Representative Pete Kott, testified read
a statement into the record as follows.
Basically, what House Bill 242 is designed to provide a tool
to bring back retired employees into the public service
workforce as well as retain those who are about to retire and
possibly aide in the further recommendation and recruitment of
younger, qualified employees.
The bill itself will make a modest improvement to the Alaska
retirement statutes to assist Alaska's public employers in
attracting and retaining qualified workers as workforce
shortages become more pronounced. Employers throughout the
state now are having difficulty in filling certain vacancies
and this is occurring at all levels: the teaching,
professional, technical and clerical.
GUY BELL, Director, Division of Retirement and Benefits, Department
of Administration detailed the bill, noting that Sections 1,2,4 and
6 - relate to the teachers retirement system. He pointed out these
sections contain segments equivalent to those in SB 149, that
passed the Senate a week prior.
Mr. Bell detailed Section 1, which permits school districts to hire
retired teachers after a declaration of a shortage or an
anticipated shortage by a school district. He shared that this
section also allows those retired teachers an option of continuing
to receive their retirement benefits during their return to
teaching, but no long accrue an additional benefit during their
return. He pointed out there is a sunset provision of the year 2006
to these provisions. He qualified that a proposed committee
substitute changes this date to the year 2005.
Mr. Bell informed that Section 6 relates to a "modest enhancement"
to medical benefits for Tier II teachers. He explained this is
designed as a retention plan in that it provides full medical
coverage paid by the Teachers Retirement System (TRS) after 25
years of teaching. He noted that currently a teacher is allowed to
retire after 25 years, but does not become eligible to receive
medical benefits until age 60, when the system pays half of the
costs. He also noted there is a "modest" cost to the TRS fund of
.17 percent. He calculated the additional cost based on a $40,000
annual salary to be $68 per teacher per year.
Mr. Bell next addressed Sections 7 and 8, which makes equivalent
changes to the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS). He listed
this applies to state as well as political subdivision, such as
municipal government employees, peace officers, professional and
technical employees, and "other workers."
Mr. Bell stated that Section 10 similar provides similar
enhancement of medical benefits to public employees as TRS
employees, as detailed above.
Mr. Bell concluded with Section 11, which simplifies the method the
geographic pay differential is included in the calculation of a
retirement benefit and applies to state employees. He shared this
is related to legislation adopted in 1986, which required employees
hired after that date to spend at least 50 percent of their time in
a pay differential area in order for the pay differential to be
included in the calculation of their retirement benefits. He noted
this legislation also included a provision requiring a comparable
amount or "equivalent steps" in the total service to qualify for
the retirement pay differential. He stressed the confusing second
portion is hard to interpret and explain to members, which makes
career planning difficult. He relayed concerns from the Alaska
State Troopers and the Department of Fish and Game because these
agencies tend to transfer employees across the state during their
careers. He stated that HB 242 changes the geographic pay
differential provision to only require an employee to spend at
least 50 percent of their career in a pay differential area to
qualify for the increased benefits in their retirement.
Senator Austerman asked if this legislation applies to employees
who retired under the Retirement Incentive Plan (RIP) or other
early retirement efforts.
Mr. Bell answered that this bill specifically prohibits an early
retiree from returning to work and also does not allow such
employees to receive these additional considerations. He explained
an employee must have a "full service" retirement in order to
qualify for the added benefits.
Co-Chair Kelly announced that because members have not had ample
opportunity to review this legislation, he planned to keep it in
the Committee.
Senator Leman moved to adopt CS HB 242, 22-LS0885\J as a working
draft.
Co-Chair Kelly asked if the sponsor supported the committee
substitute.
Ms. Henderson answered yes.
Without objection, the committee substitute was ADOPTED.
TIM ROGERS, Legislative Program Coordinator, Municipality of
Anchorage, testified in support of the bill. He told of the "brain
drain" of qualified teachers and the economic necessity for
teachers to retire from teaching and work in a second career rather
than continue to teach.
Co-Chair Kelly ordered the bill HELD in Committee.
AT EASE 11:52 AM / 11:56 AM
SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 142(HES)
"An Act relating to the Alaska temporary assistance program;
and providing for an effective date."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
Senator Green indicated this legislation allows the Department of
Health and Social Services to reduce benefits during the months of
July, August and September for two-parent families participating in
the Alaska Temporary Assistance Program (ATAP). She discussed how
this relates to out-dated language from the discontinued welfare
assistance program that was included in ATAP when it was created.
She assured, "This is the piece they need. This is all they need
this year" in order for the department to be in compliance.
Co-Chair Donley noted that the Senate Health and Social Services
committee substitute does not include all the items mentioned in
the governor's transmittal letter. [Copy on file.]
JIM NORDLUND, Director, Division of Public Assistance, Department
of Health and Social Services, testified the committee substitute
is a "stripped down" version of the bill introduced at the
beginning of the session. He informed that the committee substitute
contains an "urgent" provision that places the state in compliance
with federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) statute
that exempts welfare recipients living in certain Alaska Native
villages from the 60-month limit on benefits.
[Teleconference equipment temporally interrupted the meeting.]
Mr. Nordland explained that other provisions contained in the
original bill yet removed from the committee substitute, have a
deadline of June 2002 and could therefore be postponed.
SFC 01 # 95, Side B 12:01 PM
Mr. Nordland informed the Committee that the other remaining
provision in the committee substitute is in response to a court
case challenging statutory language, which had been taken from the
laws governing the previous public assistance program, but became
ambiguous when incorporated in the ATAP laws. This language
addressed the seasonal reduction of benefits to two-parent
households. He described the "carried over" language stipulates the
department must identify the principal wage earner in a family and
the employment status of that wage earner.
Mr. Nordland stressed the legislative and Administrative intent was
to require that all two-parent families, with the exception of
those with one parent disabled, should have their benefits reduced
during the summer months. He explained the rationale was that in
two-parent families, one parent should be able to work and also
because there are more employment opportunities during the summer
season. However, he continued, the courts did not consider intent
but rather the "letter of the law" and ruled that the department
had failed to perform and eligibility determination of the
principal wage earner and that parent's employment status.
Mr. Nordland stated Section 2 of the committee substitute, "removes
that antiquated law" and allows the department to reduce benefits
to all able-bodied two-parent families in the summer.
Senator Green offered a motion to move SCS CS HB 142 (HES) from
Committee with accompanying Department of Health and Social
Services zero fiscal note.
There was no objection and the bill MOVED from Committee.
AT EASE 12:03 PM / 12:05 PM
SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 193(JUD)
"An Act relating to the primary election and to the nomination
of candidates for the general election; and providing for an
effective date."
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COHGILL, JR. shared that he has been following
this bill since it was heard in the House State Affairs Committee,
which he chairs. He pointed out the most substantive change made to
the governor's original version of the bill is the insertion of "to
vote the party's ballot if the voter is permitted by the party's
bylaws" in Section 3, Subsection b on page 2, line 21 of the
committee substitute. He expressed this, "is really getting to the
heart of the issue."
Representative Coghill informed that the legislation requires that
each political party have a primary election ballot. He compared
the Senate Judiciary committee substitute to the House State
Affairs committee substitute and alluded to differences regarding
the inclusion of nonpartisan and undeclared party candidates.
Representative Coghill relayed that the issue of filing petitions
was raised in the Senate Judiciary Committee and pertinent language
is contained in Section 5 on beginning on page 3 of the Senate
Judiciary committee substitute. He pointed out the June 1 filing
date for candidacy and that the petition certification deadline is
the date of the primary election.
Representative Coghill expressed the reason he was presenting this
bill was due to a commitment he made to the House Judiciary
Committee chair.
Representative Coghill emphasized, "I really strongly believe…the
party should have the right to select its primary candidate through
the primary election selection process." He stated that this
committee substitute allows the political parties to chose their
candidates, and if they so choose, to invite those who are not
affiliated with their party. He said the version of the bill that
passed the House of Representative provided that the parties must
include the undeclared and nonpartisans unless that party
specifically chooses to exclude them.
Representative Coghill opined that this legislation should follow a
United States Supreme Court ruling on California Democratic Party
vs. Jones, giving the parties the right to chose whether undeclared
and nonpartisans are included. "However, I have to confess to you,"
he qualified, "that I know that my caucus, the other side of the
aisle, would much rather favor the mandated open to the 'U's and
'N's and let the parties exclude them if they so wish." He stressed
this is a policy call.
Representative Coghill again spoke to the United States Supreme
Court case, which resulted from an initiative pertaining to the
blanket primary, and where the court found that the blanket primary
is unconstitutional and "the right to association was given then,
to the parties."
Representative Coghill emphasized the Senate Finance Committee is
the last forum to determine whether the inclusion of undeclared and
nonpartisans is mandated or optional. He stated this is to
"protect the party's right to associate freely and put forth a
candidate that they so chose." He noted that the House State
Affairs committee substitute would also be acceptable because it
allows a political party to exclude.
Representative Coghill told how the political parties could be
required to submit their by-laws to the Division of Elections,
stating whether they would include the undeclared and nonpartisans.
He noted another option would be to default to exclusion unless the
political parties specified otherwise. He stressed that he wanted
the Senate Finance Committee to make this determination because he
understood that a closed ballot is "a major policy call in the
State of Alaska."
Representative Coghill commented that the blanket primary system
has not worked well for the political party system. He summarized,
"should we allow the parties to chose their own candidates?" He
pointed out that undeclared and nonpartisan comprise a large
portion of voters in the state. This legislation, he stated, would
require these voters to make a choice as to whether they wish to be
"involved in the party or lobby the party to allow them to vote on
their primary ballot." He remarked, "I think that's right. I think
that's proper."
Senator Wilken asked if the Senate Judiciary committee substitute
excludes undeclared and nonpartisan unless specifically allowed in
the political party's by-laws, and that a draft committee
substitute, prepared by the testifier, includes undeclared and
nonpartisan unless specifically excluded in the party's by-laws.
Representative Coghill affirmed.
Senator Wilken established that the draft committee substitute
contains similar language as the House State Affairs committee
substitute, which passed the House of Representatives.
Representative Coghill reaffirmed and noted the draft committee
substitute contains language from the Senate Judiciary committee
substitute pertaining to petitions for candidacy.
Senator Ward asked if a party could restrict a member of another
party from voting its ballot.
Representative Coghill affirmed.
Senator Hoffman asked how voters registered as undeclared or
nonpartisan would vote in the primary if the political parties
decided to exclude them. He predicted some would become angry if
they could not participate in the primary election.
Representative Coghill agreed and said this is a policy call. He
noted that undeclared and nonpartisan voters have had the
opportunity to choose candidates from political parties without
joining that party. He read from the Supreme Court ruling "the
voters desire to participate does not become more weighty simply
because the state supports it." He continued reading, "the voter
who feels himself disenfranchised should simply join the party that
may put him to a hard choice but it is not a state-imposed
restriction upon his freedom, of association that is… Whereas
compelling party members to accept the selection of nominees is a
state-imposed restriction upon theirs."
Senator Olson asked about instances where several candidates from
one party have filed, but few, if any have filed for another party.
He asked if there is a mechanism to address this.
Representative Coghill replied, "That's what the general election
process is all about." He stated that one party should have the
right to select from several candidates of its party even if there
are no other candidates outside that party
AVRUM GROSS testified in Juneau as chair of "a taskforce to rewrite
the state's primary laws after it became clear that the existing
law was unconstitutional." He listed the taskforce membership as
including all the former lieutenant governors of the state, both
Republican and Democrat, and two former Attorneys General. He
described the taskforce's charge to draft legislation addressing
the matter.
Mr. Gross detailed the issues was because Alaska had a blanket
primary, which he defined as one ballot containing all candidates
from all political parties and thus allowing voters to select a
candidate from any party for each office regardless of the voter's
party affiliation. He noted that the U.S. Supreme Court, in
California Democratic Party versus Jones, ruled that a party could
chose to restrict the people who could vote for its candidates in
the primary election. He informed there has to be a mechanism
whereby the state recognized the desire of the parties to limit the
people who could participate in selecting its candidates.
Mr. Gross relayed that the taskforce heard testimony from the
political parties, then drafted a law that was "as close to the
existing law as we could" and yet incorporate the Supreme Court
decision. The resulting legislation, he said, proposes a "modified
blanket primary law", which provides that a ballot lists all the
candidates from all the parties and was available to any voter
unless a party decided in its by-laws that it did not wish certain
people to participate in the selection of that party's candidates.
Mr. Gross detailed the taskforce's recommendation to have ballots
that contain the candidates from all parties not excluded by a
specific political party. He gave an example, saying if the
Democratic Party determined that members of the Republican Party
should not vote for their candidates, no Democratic candidates
would appear on the ballot available for Republican voters.
However, he continued, candidates from other political parties that
have not made such a decision with regard to the Republican Party,
would appear on the ballot available to Republican voters in
addition to the Republican candidates. He explained that all
ballots would contain candidates from all parties except for
ballots available to a party in which another party has determined
should not be allowed to vote for its candidates. In this manner,
he said, candidates from some parties could appear on more than one
ballot.
Mr. Gross surmised that this method recognizes the Supreme Court
case, by allowing parties to limit the people who vote for its
candidates. However, he pointed out, this does not prohibit people
from voting for candidates of different parties in some races if
that party allowed them to. He emphasized this retains the blanket
primary.
Mr. Gross expressed the taskforce's intent to encourage the maximum
amount of public participation in the primary election process to
the extent that parties do not prohibit it. He shared the
taskforce's understanding that the more races a voter is allowed to
participate in, the more encouraged they would be to vote in the
primary election.
Mr. Gross told the Committee that the version of the bill passed by
the House of Representatives is no longer a blanket primary.
Instead, he stated, the House State Affairs committee substitute
establishes a set of closed primaries, each party having its own
ballot. He pointed out that the only voters who can receive a
ballot are members of the political party or those who that party
has determined are allowed that ballot. He stressed that this
method does not allow nonpartisan and undeclared voters to
participate in different primary races. He explained that the only
candidates a nonpartisan or undeclared voter can chose are from the
one party included on the ballot. He added that this applies to all
races.
Mr. Gross noted the governor had no input in the original
legislation other than introducing what the taskforce drafted to
the legislature. He stated, "We thought a closed primary system
would really shut down the process and not encourage people to
participate." He remarked that even with the current blanket
primary system, voter participation has reduced and as a result,
"we were fundamentally opposed-and I mean Republicans and Democrats
alike on this commission, this isn't a partisan effort- to setting
up a closed primary. That was the universal view of the
commission."
Mr. Gross asserted the House State Affairs committee substitute is
a "seriously restricted bill. It changes the primary system of
Alaska radically." He stated it is, "giving parties control over
the system; control not mandated by the Supreme Court." In
addition, he said, "This is a totally different concept." He
expressed that besides affecting voter participation, "in the end
the state sets up the process by which candidates are nominated for
the general election. If the state sets it up, it should allow, it
seems to me, the maximum number of citizens to participate in that
process." He remarked that the committee substitute instead
minimizes citizen participation by discouraging their participation
in the primary system. He stated, "You can do this in the name of
partisan politics if you want, but at the same time, the voters
don't have any other way to make their views known."
Mr. Gross pointed out that over sixty percent of the voters in
Alaska are not registered to a political party. He stressed that
the task force objected to a primary system directed only for
political parties, and that encourages voters to join parties they
otherwise do not want to join.
Senator Austerman referenced language inserted to Section 6, on
page 4, line 31 and page 5, lines 1 and 2 of the Senate Judiciary
committee substitute. This language reads as follows.
(17) if the candidacy is for the office of the
governor, the name of the candidate for lieutenant governor
running jointly with the candidate for governor.
New Text Underlined
Senator Austerman asked the witness to comment on this language.
Mr. Gross replied that the taskforce never addressed this matter.
Representative Coghill noted this was not included in earlier
versions of the bill and that he had no knowledge of any
discussions on the matter. He explained the language relates to
provisions for a candidate seeking nomination by petition and
stipulates that a gubernatorial and lieutenant governor candidate
are listed together on a filing petition.
Senator Ward asked if undeclared and nonpartisan voter could vote
any ballot under this bill.
Representative Coghill responded that the parties would chose which
voters could receive a ballot containing that party's candidates.
Senator Wilken asked which version of the bill Mr. Gross supports.
Mr. Gross responded he supports the original bill that was
introduced by the governor in the House of Representatives, which
he pointed out is completely different than any version here.
Co-Chair Kelly ordered the bill HELD in Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
Co-Chair Pete Kelly recessed the meeting at 12:31 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|