Legislature(2005 - 2006)SENATE FINANCE 532
11/15/2006 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB4001 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| * | SB4001 | ||
MINUTES
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
Fourth Special Session
November 15, 2006
9:13 a.m.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Lyda Green convened the meeting at approximately
9:13:35 AM.
PRESENT
Senator Lyda Green, Co-Chair
Senator Gary Wilken, Co-Chair
Senator Fred Dyson
Senator Bert Stedman
Senator Donny Olson
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Also Attending: SENATOR GARY STEVENS; SENATOR TOM WAGONER;
SENATOR KIM ELTON; REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL, REPRESENTATIVE
MIKE KELLY; SCOTT NORDSTRAND, Commissioner, Department of
Administration; PAM FINLEY, Revisor of Statutes, Legislative
Legal Counsel, Division of Legal and Research Services,
Legislative Affairs Agency; TAM COOK, Director, Division of
Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency; BARBARA
BELNAP, President, Juneau chapter, National Organization for
Women (NOW); MARSH BUCK, Parents, Families and Friends of
Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) Juneau; LIN DAVIS, Plaintiff, ACLU v.
State of Alaska and Municipality of Anchorage; BEN KRALL; CINDY
BOESSER;
Attending via Teleconference: KEVIN CLARKSON, Attorney, Brena,
Bell & Clarkson, P.C.; MICHAEL MCLEOUD-BALL, Executive Director,
American Civil Liberties Union of Alaska (ACLU); DAVE BRONSON;
JIM MINNERY; Alaska Family Council, DAN WAYNE, Attorney,
Division of Legal and Research Services; LEE BADGETT, UCLA Law
School; NANCY HOMSTEAD; JAN DEYOUNG, Chief Assistant Attorney,
General-Statewide Section, Supervisor, Labor and State Affairs
Section, Civil Division (Anchorage); STEVEN JACQUIER; DEBBIE
JOSLIN, Delta Junction, President, Eagle Forum Alaska.
SUMMARY INFORMATION
SB 4001-STATE EMPLOYEE SAME-SEX PARTNER BENEFITS
The Committee heard from the Department of Administration, the
Division of Legal and Research Services, and took public
testimony. A committee substitute was adopted and the bill was
held in Committee.
SENATE BILL NO. 4001
"An Act relating to employment-related insurance benefits
for the same-sex partner of a state employee; relating to
survivor and medical benefits for the same-sex partner of a
member of the state's teachers', public employees',
judicial, or elected public officers retirement systems;
and providing for an effective date."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
Co-Chair Wilken moved to adopt CS SB 4001(FIN), 24-GS4033\G, as
the working document.
There was no objection, and Version "G" was ADOPTED as a working
document.
9:15:02 AM
SCOTT NORDSTRAND, Commissioner, Department of Administration,
directed Members to a booklet titled "Special Legislative
Session, Same-Sex Partner Benefits, November 13, 2006, Frank H.
Murkowski, Governor" [copy on file] provided by the Office of
the Governor. Section 9, titled "ACLU Case Timeline" would
provide background on the issue.
AT EASE 9:16:17 AM / 9:18:05 AM
Commissioner Nordstrand reviewed the history of the complaint
filed by the Alaska Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) against the
State of Alaska and the Municipality of Anchorage in 1999. The
superior court ruled in 2001 in favor of the State, finding that
the State had not violated the Equal Protection clause of the
Alaska State Constitution by failing to extend health and
retirement benefits to same-sex partners of State employees.
Commissioner Nordstrand continued that in October of 2005 the
Alaska Supreme Court overruled the superior court, holding that
denial of benefits to same-sex partners was a violation of equal
protection guarantees under the State Constitution. The Court's
opinion was based on the existence of the 1998 "Marriage
Amendment" that defined marriage as a contract that could be
entered into only by one man and one women, effectively
prohibiting same-sex couples from wedding. The Court found that
because a same-sex couple was prohibited from marrying to obtain
spousal benefits as a heterosexual couple could, denying them
equal benefits was discriminatory. Commissioner Nordstrand noted
that the Court subjected the policy that denied same-sex partner
benefits to "minimal scrutiny". The Supreme Court retained
jurisdiction over the case in its October, 2005 ruling, and
asked for briefings from both parties of the potential remedies
to bring the State and Municipality into compliance with the
constitution.
Commissioner Nordstrand relayed that in January 2006, the State
and the ACLU presented the requested briefings to the Court. The
State of Alaska's recommendations included presenting the issue
to the legislature to develop regulations and eligibility
guidelines, and create an implementation plan. The State's
briefing contained a timeline that called for a same-sex partner
benefit program to be in place by January 1, 2007.
Commissioner Nordstrand informed that the Alaska Supreme Court
did not provide its recommended remedy until June 1, 2006. At
that time, the legislature had adjourned its regular session.
9:23:01 AM
Commissioner Nordstrand referred to section 10 of the booklet,
titled "Supreme Court Order, June 1, 2006". This order required
the State to be providing benefits to eligible same-sex couples
by January 1, 2007, and transferred jurisdiction of the case
back to the superior court for further proceedings. Due to the
fact that the legislature would not convene until after the
January 1 deadline, the Department of Administration was
directed to draft regulations, as the Commissioner of the
Department is the plan administrator for retirement and
benefits. Commissioner Nordstrand published "draft regulations"
in September of 2006, and conducted a 30-day public comment and
hearing period. On October 13, the Department issued the final
version of the regulations. The portion of those regulations
pertinent to retirement benefits would have become effective
November 12, 2006, but an "emergency regulation" was filed the
previous week. Lieutenant Governor Loren Leman refused to
endorse and file the regulations pertaining to active employee's
health benefits, as required by the Administrative Procedures
Act, and thus this component of the benefit package was "in
limbo".
9:25:25 AM
Commissioner Nordstrand noted the court's involvement in the
administrative process had been "unusual". While the legislative
branch of government is charged with drafting the laws of the
State of Alaska, the executive branch has the delegated
responsibility to draft administrative regulations. In this
case, the court had required the Commissioner to submit
regulations for review before they were adopted or implemented.
A series of hearings, some lasting two hours, were held to
"debate" draft regulations before the superior court. The
Department, in an attempt to protect the "deliberative process"
and executive authority, had refused to provide the Department's
reasoning for adopting the regulations as requested by the
court. The court ordered the final regulations to be submitted
more than a week before they were published and warned that if
they were not submitted prior to their being made public, the
regulations would be deemed unconstitutional. Commissioner
Nordstrand was "uncomfortable" with the court's involvement in
the development of regulations.
9:28:11 AM
Commissioner Nordstrand told that after the final regulations
were compiled, the court concluded that the regulations were
unconstitutionally strict. It recommended specific changes to
the regulation criteria, including deletion of the word
"exclusive" in the definition of the relationship, changing the
duration of the relationship from twelve months to six, and
adding joint custody of children to the criteria, which
"trumped" all other financial requirements. The number of
financial criteria an applicant was required to meet was
decreased from five to three, and additional benefits were added
related to leave considerations and issuance of final paycheck
in the event of the death of an employee.
9:29:45 AM
Commissioner Nordstrand detailed that the superior court's
order, dated October 30, 2006 required the State to "immediately
incorporate this court's order into its regulations or otherwise
modify its regulations so that they comply with the Alaska
Supreme Court's mandate." This order was the result of a request
for an emergency regulation, which is effective upon adoption.
He was then faced with the prospect of establishing a new
retirement tier, as retirement benefits cannot be diminished
once they've been granted. The new tier would have applied to
all current State, Public Employee Retirement System (PERS), and
Teachers Retirement System (TRS) employees.
Commissioner Nordstrand struggled with the impact the court's
order would have on the State's retirement systems, and the
proposed regulations were questioned by Lieutenant Governor
Leman, who queried whether the Commissioner of Administration
was acting within the scope of his authority.
Commissioner Nordstrand identified statute sections AS 39.35.535
and 39.30.090, which delineate who is eligible to receive
benefits, as areas that would be affected if the court ordered
regulations were adopted to include "same-sex partner".
Commissioner Nordstrand declared he was "stuck between a rock
and a hard place", as the Lieutenant Governor believed adopting
regulations mandated by the court would usurp the legislature's
power to draft laws, but the Department of Law considered a
court order a sort of "super authority" to carry out the court's
ruling to comply with the constitution. This situation resulted
in the current special legislative session to resolve this
issue.
9:32:36 AM
Senator Dyson asked if "common law" marriages would qualify a
person to receive their partner's benefits.
Commissioner Nordstrand was unsure, but understood that common
law marriage was not recognized in Alaska.
Senator Dyson set forth that if common law marriages were
recognized, perhaps the criteria used to establish those
relationships could be applicable to the current situation.
9:33:52 AM
Commissioner Nordstrand spoke to the original version of the
bill. He summarized it as a "codification" of the final
regulations issued October 13, 2006. The State essentially based
its criteria on the University of Alaska's domestic partnership
program, which had been in existence for ten years, and tailored
it to the State's specific needs.
9:35:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL informed that common law marriage is
not recognized in Alaska.
9:36:06 AM
Senator Dyson asked if cases establishing a precedent on common
law marriage were considered in relation to this legislation.
9:36:25 AM
Representative Coghill did not know. He explained SB 4001 as an
attempt to reserve the right of the legislature to make policy
decisions regarding the State's retirement and benefit
regulations. He pointed out the "disagreement" between the
legislative and judicial branches of State government,
illustrated by the legislature's passage in 1996 of a statute
prohibiting recognition of same-sex relationships as an
entitlement to marriage benefits, which the court has
effectively "overruled" with the current mandate. He suggested
that the legislation was a means of conveying to the
administration that the disagreement was ongoing. He warned that
the Division of Legal and Research Services may "acquiesce" to
the court's decision, but the legislature, as a policy-making
body, should not be "bound to that" legal opinion.
9:39:12 AM
Co-Chair Green directed members to a memorandum from the
Division of Legal and Research Services, dated November 15,
2006.
9:39:21 AM
PAM FINLEY, Reviser of Statutes, Division of Legal and Research
Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, addressed legal concerns.
She communicated that the committee substitute would place the
commissioner of the Department of Administration in the
"uncomfortable" position between a court order requiring him to
adopt benefit regulations and a statute that would criminalize
that action. She was also concerned that if the statute was
passed solely as a prohibition on the adoption of the
Department's regulations, and did not propose other regulations
to implement same-sex partner benefits as required by the court,
the statute would be ruled unconstitutional for violating the
Equal Protection provision of the constitution.
9:42:05 AM
Senator Dyson asked if the statute would be acceptable if it
were made effective for an eight-month period, in which the next
legislature could meet in its regular session to address the
entire issue.
9:42:41 AM
Ms. Finley replied that a temporary provision would likely be
"more palatable" to the court than an outright refusal to adopt
regulations. While she could not guarantee the court's approval
of legislation, it would show "good faith" on the part of the
legislature to comply with the court order.
9:43:17 AM
Senator Dyson continued, referencing a policy adopted by the
state of Texas in which a state employee was allowed to
designate one adult as a dependant for the purposes of insurance
benefits. This would allow same-sex couples to participate in
the benefits system, but he was uncertain if it would satisfy
the superior court's ruling that "functional equivalency" be
granted to these partnerships.
9:44:44 AM
Ms. Finley responded that such an approach "might very well
work". It would eliminate marital status from Equal Protection
considerations, as it would include married couples as well as
unmarried same-sex couples.
9:45:56 AM
Senator Dyson inquired weather that type of benefit structure
could be retroactively imposed that on all existing enrollees,
active and retired.
9:46:32 AM
Ms. Finley answered that retirement rights could not be
diminished, but expansions of benefits are permissible.
Senator Dyson assumed that adoption of a "one dependant per
enrollee" system would not diminish retirement benefits.
Ms. Finley was unsure, and would require more time to research
all applicable circumstances.
Co-Chair Green commented that she hoped the legislature would
not have to manage that "hypothetical" situation.
9:47:25 AM
Ms. Finley stated that in a possible reaction to the passage of
this statute, the court could rule the regulation
unconstitutional. The second option would be a ruling in which
the court would find that since the legislature had failed to
act, and the Department of Administration was prohibited from
acting, the court would order its own regulations be
implemented. Those regulations would likely be very similar to
those proposed by the Department of Administration.
Ms. Finley stated that the courts are reluctant to impose
regulations. She exampled instances of court-ordered busing of
students in the public school system to remedy racial
segregation, in which the courts repeatedly returned the issue
to the legislative body for review before mandating the busing
policy, as the legislature failed to act. Court-ordered
regulations are less desirable because the courts do not have
the opportunity to hold hearings and gather information as the
administration does. The court, in this instance, could take
regulations developed by the Department of Administration and
"tweak" them to their specifications, then order the Department
to implement them.
9:49:11 AM
Senator Olson asked the consequences if the commissioner of the
Department of Administration did not follow a court order to
implement the regulations, under the "separation of powers"
argument.
Ms. Finley replied that the issue would be enforcement. The
court does not have law enforcement to impose their edict. If
the entire executive branch were to ignore the court order, the
remedy would be to hold individuals in contempt of court.
9:50:06 AM
Ms. Finley spoke to the retroactive element in this legislation
as potentially problematic with regard to vestment of rights.
Commissioner Nordstrand testified that the emergency regulation
of November 10, 2006 was intended to prevent the retirement
portion of the regulations from vesting November 12, 2006. Ms.
Finley was not certain that the regulation accomplished this,
and allowed for the possibility that some benefits may have
vested.
9:51:13 AM
Ms. Finley elaborated that regulations adopted under the
retirement systems are not subject to the Administrative
Procedures Act, and become effective 30 days after adoption. The
original regulations were adopted October 12, 2006, and could
have become effective the previous week.
Ms. Finley set forth that medical benefits, on the other hand,
are not vested until the regulations have been filed. Since the
regulations had not yet been filed, the benefits had not been
vested. These scenarios represent two tracks of vested rights.
If rights have vested, the retroactivity clause would not apply
to them.
9:53:16 AM
TAMARA COOK, Director, Division of Legal and Research Services,
Legislative Affairs Agency, responded to Senator Dyson's remarks
regarding the benefits system adopted by the state of Texas. If
the State of Alaska were to adopt a benefit structure that
eliminated spousal benefits and instead allowed each eligible
worker to designate a dependant adult, the Equal Protection
issues currently facing the State would be alleviated.
Consideration of how the new regulations would be applied to
current employees would be necessary, but no Equal Protection
conflicts would apply for employees hired under those rules.
9:54:29 AM
Senator Dyson mentioned that the court's order was directed to
the current administration, which would be concluding its term
in several weeks. He wondered whether the new administration
could request an extension from the court, or if the order would
apply to the new executive body as well.
9:55:24 AM
Ms. Cook understood that the new administration could ask the
court for an extension, but could not demand one be granted. She
was unsure how the court would react to such a request.
9:55:53 AM
KEVIN CLARKSON, Attorney, Brena, Bell & Clarkson, P.C.,
testified via teleconference from an offnet location. He
informed that he had been retained by the Legislative Council
and asked to address the legal opinions issued by the Division
of Legal and Research Services. He characterized the legislation
as a "separation of powers" bill rather than a "no benefits"
bill. He endorsed the incorporation of a termination date
provision to limit the amount of time this bill would be
effective. He agreed with the Division of Legal and Research
Services that if the intent of this bill is to absolutely deny
benefits to same-sex partners, it would be unconstitutional. If,
however, the intent of the bill is to delay the "effect of the
remedy", he would consider that to be a legal exercise of the
legislature's power.
Mr. Clarkson emphasized that the January 1, 2007 deadline set by
the court had no "constitutional significance". He encouraged
the legislature to address the issue by statute during the next
legislative session.
Mr. Clarkson disagreed with the position of the Division of
Legal and Research Services in relation to the retroactivity
provision. He surmised that the emergency regulation issued by
Commissioner Nordstrand effectively delayed the vesting of
benefits on November 12, 2006. He assumed a time limit on the
statute would help ensure the court's approval of the bill.
AT EASE 10:01:17 AM / 10:16:07 AM
Ms. Finley related that ex post facto provisions in the
constitution would prohibit any law which would change the legal
consequences for an act committed before the law was enacted.
Thus, regulations published by the commissioner of the
Department of Administration could not be punished
retroactively.
Ms. Finley assumed that the court would be reluctant to grant
the legislature an extension, as ample time had been allowed for
drafting and adoption of regulations. She suggested suspending
the commissioner's power to adopt regulations for a specified
period of time, such as until the next regular session of the
legislature, and include a provision that would make any
regulations adopted thereafter retroactive to January 1, 2007.
Senator Dyson asked if that language could be drafted for
consideration as an amendment.
Ms. Finley agreed.
10:18:35 AM
MICHAEL MCLEOUD-BALL, Executive Director, American Civil
Liberties Union of Alaska (ACLU), one of the parties involved in
the lawsuit testified via teleconference from an offnet
location. He had not seen the current Version "G" of the bill,
but would attempt to tailor his comments to that version. He was
opposed to the governor's legislation and deemed it unnecessary.
Due to the fact that the governor's bill would establish two
different sets of employees with different standards, it would
be ruled unconstitutional by the courts. He suggested that the
legislature was the proper body to resolve the issue, as had
been mentioned in the ACLU's original brief.
Mr. McLeoud-Ball opined that the Court had not issued an order
until June in anticipation that the legislature would have acted
on the issue during its regular session. When the legislature
failed to act, the Court issued the order. With the exception of
the Court's motivation for waiting until June to issue the
order, he agreed with Commissioner Nordstrand's comments and
timeline. The consensus of attorneys from the ACLU, the
administration, and the legislature who have examined the issue
is that the legislation is unnecessary, and that Commissioner
Nordstrand did have the authority to issue regulations. He found
the Lieutenant Governor's concern to be without merit.
Mr. McLeoud-Ball addressed comments made by members of the
legislature in objection to the court mandate requiring them to
adopt regulations. No such court order had been issued. The June
1 Supreme Court ruling returned the case to the Anchorage
superior court to oversee the implementation of a remedy. The
proposal that the remedy be adopted by regulation came from the
administration, not the court.
Mr. McLeoud-Ball contended that the court's involvement in the
drafting of regulations was merely advisory and an attempt to
assist the administration in drafting regulations that would be
constitutionally acceptable. One recent court order set forth
that the Commissioner ought to change the criteria included in
the regulations, and provided criteria that the judge would
consider constitutional. The order specified that alternative
criteria may also be acceptable, but the Commissioner submitted
only the judge's suggested criteria. The Court again offered the
administration an opportunity to submit other criteria, which
the administration chose not to do. He concluded that the
supposition that the court had tried to write the criteria was a
"mischaracterization".
Co-Chair Green appreciated Mr. McLeoud-Ball's observations. She
spoke to the "fine distinction" in the court's involvement,
which she characterized as "highly unusual". She asked Mr.
McLeoud-Ball if he had witnessed such extensive court
involvement in regulation preparation previously.
Mr. McLeoud-Ball replied negatively. He found the separation of
powers to be the "interesting" aspect of the question. While the
court is the arbiter of what is or is not constitutional, the
executive branch is charged with the daily operations of the
government, and the legislature sets the policy. Those divisions
have been tenuous. For that reason, superior court Judge
Joannides had been careful to allow the administration to devise
its own criteria, yet views it as her obligation to inform the
parties what would or would not be deemed constitutional.
10:29:00 AM
Senator Dyson understood that some jurisdictions had chosen to
recognize transsexuals as members of the gender with which they
identify, rather than the gender they are biologically
determined to be a part of. This has occurred even in instances
where the transsexual chooses not to have surgical alterations.
He asked Mr. McLeoud-Ball if he had knowledge of such
situations.
Mr. McLeoud-Ball had no personal knowledge, but did not consider
the issue relevant to the current discussion. The State of
Alaska operates under its own constitution and must satisfy its
own Equal Protection clause, which has been deemed by the courts
to be broader than the federal equal protection clause, thus
constitutional issues decided in another state are often not
applicable to Alaska.
Senator Dyson asked whether the State could be liable to provide
employment benefits to an unmarried heterosexual couple who
claimed to be a transgender same-sex couple.
Mr. McLeoud-Ball clarified that the issue before the court was
the State's justification of the current benefit system as an
attempt to encourage marriage, and that the only group barred
from marriage were same-sex couples. Therefore, nothing in the
law would bar an opposite-sex couple from getting married or
obtaining benefits.
10:33:19 AM
Co-Chair Green asked testifiers to provide brief comments.
10:33:39 AM
DAVE BRONSON testified via teleconference from an offnet
location. He opined that the Supreme Court was acting contrary
to the "will of the people", and usurping the responsibilities
of the executive and legislative branches of government. He
aligned himself with Mr. Clarkson's comments, and agreed that
the idea of giving benefits to every eligible employee and one
designated beneficiary is "two steps forward" while the court's
approach has taken "three steps back". The current proposal
would be an additional burden to the PERS and TRS systems, and
it would be appropriate to challenge the courts and "say no".
Both SJR 20 and HJR 32 were attempts to remedy this situation
that failed to pass the legislature last year. He urged Members
to side with "the people" rather than the Court and reject the
implementation of benefits for same-sex couples.
10:37:41 AM
JIM MINNERY, Alaska Family Council, testified via teleconference
from an offnet location. He would not support the implementation
of benefits, and alleged the Supreme Court was overstepping its
authority. He continued that it is important to recall that
Colorado had allowed for benefits to be provided across the
board for every state employee and their designated beneficiary.
That proposal was not supported by the groups seeking same-sex
benefits, as those groups were looking not for benefits, but for
"affirmation" of their lifestyle. He assumed that the Marriage
Amendment indicated the "people's" opinion on same-sex employee
benefits as well as marriage. He concluded that critical public
policy should not be addressed hurriedly in a special
legislative session.
10:40:17 AM
Co-Chair Green interjected that the retroactivity clause in the
bill applies only to subsection (a) of Sec.44.21.015.Regulations
prohibited., not to subsection(b) which provides for the
penalty.
10:40:59 AM
DAN WAYNE, Attorney, Division of Legal and Research Services,
Legislative Affairs Agency, testified via teleconference that he
was available to answer questions.
10:41:11 AM
Co-Chair Green noted that a written testimony had been received
from Ms. Badgett.
LEE BADGETT, University of California Los Angeles Law School,
testified via teleconference from an offnet location. She
indicated she would confine her testimony to the regulations
developed by the Department of Administration. She qualified
that, as an economist studying domestic partner benefits for
more than a decade, she considered the criteria "quite
stringent". Additionally, the level of documentation required by
the State of Alaska is unprecedented. It would impose a burden
on those seeking benefits, and they would likely incur monetary
costs to the applicants.
Ms. Badgett noted that the cost increase estimates accompanying
the bill were markedly greater than her own. Her estimates were
based on census and state of Alaska Retirement & Benefits
records, and came in much lower than the State's estimates.
While the two estimates are similar the first year of benefits,
the State's estimate balloons over time. She expected the
additional cost to be less than $1.4 million per year. She
shared that her estimates were similar to consultants hired by
the State, in terms of both projected enrollment increases and
cost increases. She anticipated cost increases would be "much
lower" than the Department of Administration estimates.
Co-Chair Green asked the percentage increase in Ms. Badgett's
calculations.
Ms. Badgett replied that she projected the increase in
enrollment to be less than one half of one percent, and likely
as low as 0.1 or 0.3 percent to 0.5 percent.
10:45:23 AM
Senator Dyson assumed that in the future, the issue of
incestuous relationships would arise. He anticipated that
polygamous families "similarly situated" to same-sex couples
would petition the State for access to employment benefits for
all members of the family under the Equal Protection clause of
the state constitution. He referenced a similar situation
currently under consideration in Canada, and asked how the State
could avoid such a circumstance.
Ms. Badgett classified herself as an economist rather than an
attorney, and deferred to lawyers for a legal opinion on that
issue. To her knowledge, however, that occurrence is quite rare,
and benefits had not been implemented in cases where that had
arisen. She did not expect the State would encounter such a
situation upon adoption of the regulations, as the Canadian case
was the only one she knew of that had been well documented.
10:47:34 AM
NANCY HOMSTEAD, testified via teleconference from an offnet
location. She agreed with Lieutenant Governor Leman that the
Court lacked the authority to require a benefit regulation when
the Marriage Amendment seemed to contradict the claim that same-
sex employment benefits must be provided. She furthered that the
intended denial of benefits was part of the Marriage Amendment
vote in 1998. The issue should be returned to the voters of
Alaska to clarify their intent, and she encouraged the Senate to
delay implementation. She warned that "the situation in Canada"
could occur in Alaska.
JAN DEYOUNG, Chief Assistant Attorney, General-Statewide Section
Supervisor, Labor and State Affairs Section, Civil Division,
Department of Law, testified via teleconference from Anchorage
to answer questions.
10:51:02 AM
STEVEN JACQUIER testified via teleconference from Anchorage. In
response to an earlier question asking if "handcuffs and
arrests" could be the result of denying the court order, he
stated that they could be. He warned that, while the court does
not have enforcement troops, he and other citizens may take it
upon themselves to make citizens' arrests of the offending
legislators and members of the administration should a court
order be defied. He read his testimony as follows.
My name is Steven Jacquier; my partner and I have lived in
Alaska for a combined total of 44 years while working as
schoolteachers, University of Alaska professors, and small
business owners. We have two children, one now in college
and one in high school here in Anchorage. I am testifying
on behalf of my children, my partner, and myself.
This is sheer-wedge issue politics, targeting a small
group. A group which does much good and no harm in Alaska.
Just as women should receive pay equal with that of men for
performing equal work, we Alaskans in long-standing,
committed relationships raising children and contributing
with our labor, all while being barred from marriage,
absolutely have paid in equally and fully earned treatment
equal with that accorded our married co-workers. This
bigoted effort hurts Alaska's families and kids. Like a
parasite it brings more grief, expense and suffering the
bigger it is allowed to grow.
In seeking to perform an end run on the justice of Alaska's
courts, in order to subvert the ruling for equal treatment
under the law, some members of this legislature are
attempting to turn married Alaskan co-workers in to
parasites. Yes, parasites. Parasites benefiting at the
expense of others by unfairly leeching off the labor of co-
workers with families. Respectable people and good
neighbors, good Christians do not embrace being like
tapeworms.
Pandering to prejudice, some members of this legislature
are trying to target same-sex families and their children
for special discriminatory exclusions. Instead of
protecting equality and citizens rights, this effort would
strip away equal treatment and unjustly target a specific
group, unmarried families, for harm while creating special
privileges for others, married families, thus effectively
forcing married co-workers and their families to become
parasites upon unmarried co-workers with families and
committed same-sex relationships.
Only hypocrites who give lip service to ideals of "small
government" and "equality under the law" while intruding
their own personal and religious prejudices into their
neighbors' lives would support this ugly effort. Hypocrites
and parasites do not make for good co-workers, nor good
neighbors, nor a healthy Alaska. Such parasites are without
any shred of fairness, honor, or dignity. Legislators and
others who embrace being parasites should not even think
about trying to claim the high moral ground on this issue.
Alaska's courts have ruled, and the commissioner of
administration is able to implement the ruling. For shame,
people. Please stop this heinous pandering now, and let us
all just live in peace. Thank you.
10:55:36 AM
BARBARA BELNAP, President, Juneau chapter, National Organization
for Women (NOW), testified against the bill. She urged the
Committee to allow the court ruling to stand. The government of
South Africa recently announced it would recognize same-sex
marriages and civil unions, stating that the government had
labored to abolish racial discrimination and could not ignore
discrimination based on sexual preference. While numerous states
in America have passed laws prohibiting same-sex marriage, more
than half of the largest corporations in the country, as well as
some city and state governments, offer benefits to same-sex
couples. The Alaska State Constitution affords equal protection
to all. The court is not legislating from the bench but is
rather upholding the constitution.
10:57:55 AM
MARSH BUCK, Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays
(PFLAG) Juneau, urged the Committee to oppose this legislation.
She communicated that the implementation of same-sex partner
benefits by January 1, 2007, made "financial sense", as it is
less of a monetary burden to the state to provide benefits than
to provide services to uninsured Alaskans. Another financial
concern is the possibility of being found in contempt of court
and fined accordingly. She stressed that other minority groups
of society, including ethnic minorities and those with
disabilities, have received benefits, and advised the Committee
to provide the court ordered benefits to same-sex couples.
11:01:11 AM
LIN DAVIS, Plaintiff in the aforementioned lawsuit, and employee
of the Department of Labor and Workforce Development, urged the
Committee to contest this legislation. She is in a committed,
loving relationship with her partner of more than 18 years, who
is nine years her junior. Ms. Davis has been a State employee
for ten years, and does not receive the same pay as her
heterosexual co-workers who enjoy employment and retirement
benefits for their spouses. Her partner was laid off after 13
years of State employment, and her COBRA health insurance
extension would expire in March of 2007. This illustrates the
importance of the January 1, 2007 implementation deadline.
Ms. Davis, as a dedicated employee at the Juneau Job Center,
does not believe she receives the same "stewardship and
dedication" from the State that she provides through her work.
Her father worked for General Electric (GE) most of his life and
left his company stock to Ms. Davis upon his death. She
displayed GE's 2005 stock report, which included offering same-
sex partner benefits as one of the company's five methods for
growth. The Alaska Permanent Fund is invested in GE, a company
which has proven that offering same-sex partner benefits is good
for business and good for the bottom line. She urged the
legislature to follow GE's example of providing partner
benefits.
BEN KRALL, provided written testimony [copy on file], read by
his mother Cindy Boesser as follows. .
I am Ben Krall. I am 11-years-old, and was born and raised
in Juneau. I would like to testify against giving you any
more time to do what you need to do. You just need to give
the benefits to all of the people of Alaska who deserve
them for the work they do.
It does not matter whether you like them or not. It doesn't
matter whether you think how they are is o.k. It doesn't
even matter if you think you can afford it or not. That's
not the point! It's just about it being what you owe them
for the work they do.
I just finished my first big paying job last week, walking
my neighbor's dog for a month, and she paid me what it was
worth. She wouldn't have cared if I liked girls or boys,
because I don't really care about either, and because that
really had nothing to do with my work or my pay. She didn't
talk about whether she had enough money to do it, either.
That would be crazy. She had asked me to work, and I had
done the job.
I have good friends who are lesbians and gays. One lesbian
couple has two sweet babies I've helped babysit this
summer. They are really responsible parents, and take good
care of those girls. And they both are hard workers, too,
but only one works for the State. They deserve to have full
benefits for their work. Their kids need benefits, too. And
the couple needs to be able to take care of each other,
too.
My dad works for the State of Alaska and gets benefits, but
my mom doesn't work enough hours with the city to get
benefits. Mom had her thyroid taken out last month, so I've
been hearing the talk about expensive doctors, and about
insurance. What if they were a lesbian couple? Then she
wouldn't have been able to use Dad's insurance, and we'd
owe like $15,000.00! We don't have that much, and I bet
lots of gay and lesbians probably don't either.
I am really disgusted with the Governor for wasting all
that money on flying you all down here because he and his
prejudiced gang think they know better than the Supreme
Court. The court thought a lot about their decision. They
did their homework. They decided these people deserve the
benefits because our Constitution says so. That's good
enough for me, and I bet it's good enough for most people,
unless they let their prejudice get in the way. All that
needs to be done is to just give the workers their
benefits. It's a no-brainer.
11:08:35 AM
CINDY BOESSER, responded to remarks regarding "the will of the
people". She was raised in the South, and assumed that if "the
will of the people" had dictated the law, rather than the
Constitution, African-Americans would still be without legal
rights. As the former director of a childcare center in Juneau,
she experienced an approximate 80 percent turnover rate until
she was able to provide benefits to employees. After benefits
were offered to employees, the turnover was almost nonexistent.
She urged the Committee to oppose the legislation.
Senator Dyson indicated he had submitted an amendment, Amendment
#1 [copy on file].
Co-Chair Green requested the amendment be held until the
Committee met again. [Note: the amendment received no further
consideration.]
11:12:32 AM
DEBBIE JOSLIN, Delta Junction, President, Eagle Forum Alaska,
testified via teleconference from Anchorage and spoke in support
of the committee substitute. She opined that the court was
legislating from the bench. She did not support providing
benefits to same sex couples. She considered the legislation a
"back door attempt" to achieve married status for same-sex
couples. Acknowledging same-sex partnerships in this manner
would lead to the "destruction of our society and our social
fabric".
There being no further testifiers, public testimony was
concluded.
11:13:51 AM
Senator Stedman requested an updated memorandum from the
Division of Legal and Research Services regarding possible
amendments. He assumed further clarification of the issues
raised would be beneficial to the continued discussion.
Co-Chair Wilken spoke in support of reporting the unamended
committee substitute. He urged that it be reported from
Committee at the earliest possible time.
RECESS TO CALL OF THE CHAIR 11:15:32 AM /2:31:06 PM
The bill was HELD in Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
Co-Chair Lyda Green adjourned the meeting at 2:31:27 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|