Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/21/1995 09:15 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
MARCH 21, 1995
9:15 a.m.
TAPES
SFC-95, #16, Side 1 (000-575)
SFC-95, #18, Side 1 (000-575)
SFC-95, #18, Side 2 (576-600)
CALL TO ORDER
Senator Rick Halford, Co-chair, convened the meeting at
approximately 9:15 a.m.
PRESENT
Co-chair Halford, Senators Phillips, Rieger, and Sharp were
present. Senator Donley joined shortly after the meeting
began. Co-chair Frank joined as the meeting was in
progress. Senator Zharoff was not in attendance.
Also Attending: Senator Miller, Representative Toohey,
Margot Knuth, Department of Law, Criminal Section; Sharon
Barton, Department of Administration; Juanita Hensley,
Department Public Safety, Driver Services; Dennis Poshard,
Director, Charitable Gaming Division; Mike Greany, Director,
Legislative Finance; Pam Neal, Alaska Chamber of Commerce;
Marveen Coggins, Legislative Aide to Rep. Toohey; and Bryce
Edgmon, Legislative Aide to Rep. Foster.
SUMMARY
SB 92 AHFC SUBJECT TO EXEC. BUDGET ACT
Discussion was had with Representative Toohey and
Sharon Barton. HB 92 was REPORTED OUT of committee
with a "do
pass" recommendation and a $170.6 fiscal note from the
Department of Administration.
HB 146 SLED DOG RACE CLASSIC
Discussion was had with Bryce Edgmon, Dennis Poshard,
and
Pam Neal, regarding CSHB 146 (L&C) am. Further
discussion will be taken up next week.
HB 21 DRIVER'S LIC REVOCATION;ALCOHOL/DRUGS
Discussion was had with Senator Miller, Rep. Toohey,
Marveen
Coggins, Margot Knuth, and Juanita Hensley regarding
CSHB 21 (FIN). Further discussion will be taken up at
the next meeting 3/22/95.
SB 82 DRIVER'S LIC REVOCATION;ALCOHOL/DRUGS
This bill is closely associated with HB 21. Discussion
and action centers on HB 21. There was no discussion
on this bill.
HOUSE BILL NO. 92
"An Act extending the termination date of the Citizens'
Review Panel for Permanency Planning; and providing for
an effective date."
Co-chair Halford invited Representative Toohey to join the
committee. Representative Toohey presented testimony
regarding HB 92. (Testimony is attached.)
Senator Rieger asked if the Citizens Review Panel is active.
Marveen Coggins, Legislative Aide to Rep. Toohey noted that
the Permanency Planning Panel and the Foster Care Review
Panel are one in the same. The formal name is the Citizen's
Review Panel for Permanency Planning (CRPPP).
Co-chair Halford invited Sharon Barton, Dept. of
Administration, to join the committee. Ms. Barton testified
that since December of 1994, she has supervised the CRPPP in
Anchorage. She pointed out the zero fiscal note emphasizing
the money for this function has been included in the
governor's amended budget.
Co-chair Halford read a statement from the OMB instructions
on fiscal notes. "Please remember that fiscal notes
extending an entity under sunset review should display the
ongoing cost of operations and any associated review
generated by the passage of the sunset legislation. These
types of fiscal notes should be footnoted to indicate that
the expenditures are contained in the proposed operating
budget, and that the revenues are reflected in the revenue
projection." He noted that this is current as of January
20th of this year, consistent with the statute. He pointed
out that there does need to be a fiscal note. It does need
to note that the money is in the budget.
Ms. Barton said that a fiscal note of $170.6 had been
submitted with the bill. House Finance replaced it with a
zero fiscal note. She noted that the department would be
happy to resubmit a fiscal note. Co-chair Halford responded
that as long as the fiscal note meets the law, and OMB's
guidelines follow the law, the Senate and House Finance
Committees can zero it out. The Committees must be
presented with the actual cost before a conscious decision
to zero it out can be made.
Discussion was had regarding the amount of $170.6. Ms.
Barton stated that it pays for salaries for 3 staff people
who: research and organize the cases; distribute to the
panels; recruit the volunteer panels; facilitate the
meetings with families; search out family members who need
to be in attendance at those meetings; and coordinate with
the Public Defender Agency, Public Advocacy Staff, DFYS and
others involved in the reviews. Hundreds of hours are
donated, but it requires the staff to make them function
well.
Senator Sharp inquired if these employees are of the
Department of Administration. Ms. Barton indicated they
are. Senator Sharp asked further about the $170.6. She
indicated that $1.0 is allocated for travel, recognizing
that supervision comes out of Juneau, making travel to
Anchorage a couple times a year necessary. Leasing is now
required for the CRPPP as they are needing their own space.
Co-chair Halford asked if the amount of $170.6 is in the
budget.
Ms. Barton indicated that it is. It was not in the Hickel
budget, it is an add-on by Governor Knowles. She noted that
it was funded at $104.6 in FY 95. At that level it did not
fund a staff of three. She indicated that in order to be
minimally functional, they must have a staff of three.
Co-chair Halford indicated that the House took the fiscal
note and zeroed it out saying it was in the budget. He noted
that this was not a consistent policy. Co-chair Halford
made it clear to the sponsor, that the bill would have a
better chance of being funded as a fiscal note rather than
through the budget.
Co-chair Frank MOVED for passage of HB 92 with individual
recommendations. No objection having been raised, HB 92 was
REPORTED OUT of committee with the original fiscal note of
$170.6 from the Department of Administration. Co-chair
Halford asked Senator Phillips to research the funding to
bring before the conference committee for final decision
making.
HOUSE BILL NO. 146
"An Act relating to sled dog race classics."
Co-chair Halford introduced Bryce Edgmon, Legislative Aide
to Representative Foster. Mr. Edgmon testified on CSHB 146
(L&C) am.
He cited SB 66 as a cross-reference. HB 146 was amended on
the House floor to address concerns of legislators from the
interior. He indicated that the change to the bill was the
removal of the words, "sled dog race classics". This is the
gaming term that was originally used. He noted, "sled dog
race classics" was removed and "mushing sweepstakes" was
added. He said that there are smaller mushing organizations
that do conduct raffle activity and use the term "sled dog
race classics". He stressed that had legislation gone
through in its current form with "sled dog race classics",
it would have given Iditarod Trail Committee exclusive
authority to use that term. That caused some of the smaller
racing organizations concern which subsequently led to the
bill being amended on the House floor.
Senator Phillips questioned why the title is mushing
sweepstakes instead of mushing classics? Mr. Edgmon
responded that a generic term was picked. He indicated that
the term "sweepstakes" was favored. Discussion was had with
regard to the title.
Senator Donley asked why the Iditarod Trail Committee make
the decisions? Mr. Edgmon responded that there are
differing interpretations on language. The attempt in this
legislation is to place in the statutes the authority to the
trail committee to allow for game activities, and wager on
arrival times, check points and finish line into Nome.
Senator Donley asked to explore the trail committee's
authority. Mr. Edgmon responded that right now, the
statutory authority allows for wagering on the racing time
of a dog team or of a team position in the race. This bill
would allow for the wagering of the arrival times, check
points, and finish line of the Iditrod.
Co-chair Halford invited Dennis Poshard, Director,
Charitable Gaming Division, to the table. Mr. Poshard
responded to Senator Donley's question by stating that
Statute AS 05.15.690(11), under the definition of dog
mushers contest, states: "A contest in which prizes are
awarded for the correct guess of the racing time of a dog
team or of team position in the race, including prizes to
the race contestants."
Senator Donley stated that he voted against this in the
past. His concern is that unlike the other classics, this
one is ripe for potential abuse. He suggested provisions
for safeguards. His other objection to this bill is that
there are no funds collected to pay for the safeguards. Mr.
Poshard mentioned that there is a 1% tax that all permittees
pay on gaming proceeds paid annually to the division. Pull
Tabs have, in addition to the 1% tax, a 3% tax assessed when
they are purchased from the distributor.
Co-chair Halford asked what is the difference between a
mushing sweepstakes and a dog mushers contest? Mr. Poshard
responded that according to the Department of Law, and the
Division's interpretation of the statutes, there is no
difference. At this time, this type of gaming could be
conducted under the current provision of dog mushers
contests. Mr. Edgmon mentioned that there are small scale
gaming activities similar to what this bill would authorize,
but at this point it has never been conducted on a state-
wide level. The department does not have regulations
pertaining to what is legal. From the department's
viewpoint, there is potential for differing interpretation
of the language. It is envisioned that the Iditarod Trail
Committee will be doing the game activity in a large scale.
Co-chair Halford questioned how the department would deal
with the concerns that Senator Donley raised? Mr. Poshard
responded that it would be the same method being used
currently to oversee dog mushers contests as they exist.
Discussion was had on the concerns centering around
safeguards for potential abuse of the contests. Co-chair
Halford suggested a regulatory structure for the department
along with a fiscal note if necessary, to provide the safety
required for the contests.
Senator Donley suggested a higher tax rate for gambling. He
stated that gambling is exempt from equal protection under
the United States Constitution. Co-chair Halford said that
with this particular bill the only game you could tax would
be the Iditarod, and he could not support it.
Co-chair Halford invited Pam Neal, President, Alaska Chamber
of Commerce, to join the table. She stated her support of
the legislation. The Chamber's interest is that we've been
concerned about the continued funding capabilities of the
Iditarod. The Iditarod Committee raised their concerns on
funding with the board of directors of the state chamber of
commerce, at the legislative priority setting session in
December. At that time Ms. Neal stated that the Board of
Directors rejected the legislation proposed because it
contained the check-off on the permanent fund, along with
other issues. The committee subsequently reworded the
resolution. The Chamber's interest is to find a path for
supporting sled dog racing.
Senator Donley asked if the Chamber had solutions to prevent
abuses? Ms. Neal indicated it was not a matter of
discussion. The focus was on funding. She indicated
however, the Chamber would support safeguarding against
abuse.
Co-chair Halford asked that the department work with Senator
Rieger to provide a safety measure that will insure
safeguarding the games. He suggests that the legislation
stay within the title.
Co-chair Halford said that this will be held in committee
under "bills previously heard" and address it again next
week.
HOUSE BILL NO. 21
"An Act relating to revocation of a driver's license
for illegal possession or use of a controlled
substance or illegal possession or consumption of
alcohol by a person at least 13 but not yet 21 years
of age; and providing for an effective date."
SENATE BILL NO. 82
"An Act relating to revocation of a driver's license
for illegal possession or use of a controlled
substance or illegal possession or consumption of
alcohol by a person at least 13 but not yet 21 years
of age; and providing for an effective date."
Co-chair Halford took up HB 21 which is the companion bill
to SB 82. He invited Marveen Coggins, Legislative Aide to
Representative Toohey to join the table. Ms. Coggins
testified in support of HB 21. (Testimony is attached.)
Subsequently, Co-chair Halford asked Senator Miller, as
sponsor of SB 82, to speak to HB 21. Senator Miller, as
representative of District Q, stated that SB 82 "relates to
revocation of a driver's license for illegal possession or
use of a controlled substance or illegal possession or
consumption of alcohol by a person at least 13 but not yet
21 years of age". SB 82 does not relate to firearms. In
his investigation, the only difference is that most of this
activity happens in the city of Anchorage. The city of
Fairbanks, unlike the testimony that was given, changes
under state statute because they do not have their own city
ordinance regarding minor consumption. The vast majority is
under the Anchorage law. As a matter of fact, over 50% of
the cases which relate to minors and alcohol does come under
this statute rather than state law. It has shown to be a
strong deterrent to teenage drinking and drug use because
they can identify with loosing their driver's license.
It'll be the committee's decision to decide upon firearm
use.
Co-chair Halford questioned municipal ordinances regarding
firearm provisions. Senator Donley agreed to the concern
and talked about the general conformity of municipal
ordinances with state law. He inquired as to the provisions
within this legislation that require the municipal ordinance
to be substantially similar to the state law? Further, he
noted an incidence where state and municipal law were not in
agreement. He cited an incidence involving the city of
Anchorage. Municipal law has made it illegal for women to
carry mace in their purses. This action made it necessary
for the Legislature to legislate a statute to make it legal
for people to carry defensive weapons. He stated he
supported this legislation, but wanted parameters
surrounding the kinds of ordinances they can adopt to make
it apply.
Discussion was had on alcohol related violations, and
firearm violations pertaining to the revocation of the
driver's license.
Co-chair Halford asked that Margot Knuth, Department of Law,
Criminal Section, and Juanita Hensley, Department of Public
Safety, Driver Services, to join the committee.
Ms. Knuth, noted that there is a difference between what the
department is doing with "Use it/Loose it" for alcohol and
firearms. The difference which applies to firearms in
section 28.15.185, requires a court conviction or
adjudication for the offense. She suggested the committee
consider changing words on page 3, line 25, "or municipal
ordinance...", to read, "with substantially similar
elements", it would maintain the intent of the bill.
Senator Rieger asked if the language in sections 1 and 2 was
as clear as in section 5? Ms. Knuth responded that the way
the draft reads, each of the places where it says, "or
municipal ordinance" does tie back to either the alcohol or
controlled substance section and adds or extends it for
those violations.
Senator Rieger asked for clarity on the draft language. Ms.
Knuth answered that if there is an ambiguity in the statute,
it always gets held against the state. She stated that the
language does require the citation be for the offense that
is the focus of these proceedings. She stated that there
are provisions that require the factual basis for the
citation. It would be very difficult to say, "here is the
factual basis for the conduct", and "here is a citation that
does not relate to it". Senator Rieger stated his fear of a
presumption of guilt until innocent. He noted that with this
legislation, the police officer can take the driver's
license before the adjudication or conviction. The only
protection for the victim is through the request of an
administrative review. There is a presumption of guilt
based on probable cause. Ms. Knuth disagrees with a
presumption of guilt. When charged with a criminal offense
and a trial is set, it indicates respect for the charge.
She stated that there is an ability to request a hearing at
which the defendant asks the state to prove its case. The
defendant does not have to make an affirmative showing that
they were not drinking, the burden remains with the
government to show that there was a violation. Anytime
there are charges, there is enough from the charge to keep
the proceedings going along and to hold a factual
adjudication. There is the option to choose a hearing, that
is a right.
Senator Rieger asked if there is an adjudication is there a
conviction? Ms. Knuth stated that adjudications do not
result in convictions. He asked how to satisfy the language
on page 4, lines 3-9. He asked if not convicted because it
was not in adjudication then nothing is done under paragraph
2? Ms. Knuth responded to start on page 3, lines 28-31. In
speaking to a juvenile adjudication, the language, "if
convicted", should also be read to include, "adjudicated".
Otherwise, there is a situation where the license is lost
because of adjudication for an offense and cannot be
restored unless convicted of the offense, which the law does
not intend.
Senator Rieger expressed his concerns with small town
convictions and revocation of driver's licenses. Ms. Knuth
defined "probable cause" as evidence that uncontroverted,
would lead a reasonable person to believe that the offense
was committed beyond reasonable doubt. Discussion was had on
"probably cause".
Co-chair Halford determined that this bill will be first on
the agenda tomorrow. He stated that the fiscal note and
Letter of Intent do not make sense as they read. The Letter
of Intent may be applying to last years revenue.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:00 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|