Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/21/1994 01:38 PM Senate JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
March 21, 1994
1:38 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Robin Taylor, Chairman
Senator Rick Halford, Vice-Chairman
Senator George Jacko
Senator Dave Donley
Senator Suzanne Little
MEMBERS ABSENT
NONE
OTHERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Williams
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 28
"An Act relating to the penalty for providing alcoholic beverages
to a person under the age of 21; and providing for an effective
date."
HOUSE BILL NO. 254
"An Act relating to open meetings of governmental bodies; and
amending Rule 82 of the Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure."
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 49
Urging the Congress to reevaluate its practice of imposing unfunded
mandates on state and local governments.
HOUSE BILL NO. 454
"An Act making a supplemental appropriation to the Department of
Law to pay costs of certain continuing legal proceedings; and
providing for an effective date."
SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD THIS DATE.
HOUSE BILL NO. 374
"An Act relating to reimbursable service agreements and other
agreements between state agencies for the purchase of services."
SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEAR THIS DATE.
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
HB 28 - NO PREVIOUS ACTION.
HB 254 - See Judiciary minutes dated 3/9/94 and 3/16/94.
SJR 49 - NO PREVIOUS ACTION.
HB 454 - NO PREVIOUS ACTION.
HB 374 - NO PREVIOUS ACTION.
WITNESS REGISTER
Jeanneane Henry
3812 Baranof
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports HB 28.
Margot Knuth, Asst. Atty. General
Criminal division
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 28.
Glenn Schrader
Kenai Peninsula Central Labor Council
P.O. Box 1587
Kenai, Alaska 99611
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 254.
Gene Dekerlegand
KPCLC
P.O. Box 1757
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 254.
Mr. Tom Bettaker
AML Legislative Committee
217 Second Street #200
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Worked on HB 254.
Kent Swisher
Alaska Municipal League
217 Second Street #200
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Worked on HB 254.
Rosemary Hagivig, President
League of Women Voters
P.O. Box 240423
Douglas, Alaska 99824
POSITION STATEMENT: Worked on HB 254.
John McKay
Alaska Newspaper Association
211 H Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports HB 254.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 94-21, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN ROBIN TAYLOR called the Judiciary Committee meeting to
order at 1:38 p.m.
SENATOR TAYLOR introduced HB 28 (PENALTY FOR PROVIDING ALCOHOL TO
A MINOR) sponsored by REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS to committee and
invited JEANNEANE HENRY to testify from Ketchikan.
MS. HENRY testified as to her support of the bill for the past 2.5
years, and she shared a letter from the Mental Health Department in
Ketchikan dealing with alcohol and drug abuse in the Ketchikan
area. She read the following paragraph: "The high rate of
availability and consumption level results in alcohol related
problems, which at best can be described, as epidemic in
proportion."
Number 052
MS. HENRY promised to fax the letter for the remainder of the
information, and she reviewed an incident in which her son was
killed in an accident as the result of an adult furnishing a large
amount of alcohol to a group of teens. She thanked SENATOR TAYLOR
for hearing the bill and offered to answer questions.
SENATOR TAYLOR invited the sponsor, REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS,
who explained this bill had also been sponsored by a former
legislator from Ketchikan in response to the alcohol related deaths
of the two youths in that community. He said the purpose of the
legislation was to strengthen the penalty for providing alcohol to
a person who is under the age of 21.
Right now, REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS explained, furnishing alcohol to
a minor is a misdemeanor carry a penalty of one year in year in
prison and a $5 thousand fine. He said the House Judiciary
provides that a person who provides alcohol to a minor in violation
of AS 04.16.051 is guilty of a class C felony if, within the
previous five years, the person has a prior conviction for the same
offense.
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS also explained a class C felony carries a
maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $50 thousand fine.
He described the suffering from alcohol and drug abuse all across
the State of Alaska, and he urged serious support for the bill. He
offered to answer questions.
Number 100
SENATOR LITTLE questioned the rational behind the five year time
limitation as far as a previous conviction.
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS explained when he first introduced the bill
it was a class C felony on the first offense with five years in
prison and a $50 thousand fine, but the House Judiciary Committee
chose to take that up on the second offense.
SENATOR LITTLE clarified if a person had given liquor to a minor
and was convicted of the offense six years before, then it would
still be a misdemeanor not a class C felony. REPRESENTATIVE
WILLIAMS said she was correct. SENATOR LITTLE thought there should
be no time limitation there, and there ensued a discussion of this
provision with MARGOT KNUTH from the Criminal Division of the
Department of Law.
Number 143
MS. KNUTH express her respect to the sponsor and the motivation for
the legislation, but she explained the Department of Law had some
concerns about elevating the offense to a felony level. She asked
the committee to remember the Department of Law, as well as the
Department of Corrections, is faced with dwindling resources rather
than more, and by making the second offense a felony matter, it
will require the Department of Law to take the case to grand jury
or to a preliminary hearing. She discussed the role of probation
in the offense, and she explained these type of offenses frequently
don't result in any period of incarceration, with more than a month
in jail being unlikely. She expressed a forewarning that elevating
it to a felony offense would not make people more conscientious
about the crime, or deterred people from committing the crime.
MS. KNUTH explained as a misdemeanor, the offense was treated
seriously by the court, and she described the feeling about the
offense and what the district court wanted to do about sending a
message. She didn't think there would be such an impact in
superior court, but would just be considered one of the least
serious felonies, and she hoped the message wasn't conveyed to
offenders that what they did was somehow acceptable, because as a
felony offense, it wasn't capturing much attention. Again, MS.
KNUTH conveyed her respect for the purposes for the legislation,
but she was not sure it would achieve its goal.
SENATOR DONLEY asked it there had been any multiple prosecution of
persons accuse a second time for this same offense, and MS. KNUTH
referred to their fiscal note to report there weren't many of these
second time offenses.
Number 191
SENATOR DONLEY asked if there were any examples that would show
whether or not judges were giving out jail sentences for second
time misdemeanor offenses. He surmised they weren't, and asked for
any case specifics.
MS. KNUTH said it was largely suspended jail time.
SENATOR TAYLOR did think there were serious ramifications; however,
if licensed premises were found to be the persons selling.
MS. KNUTH said he was correct and explained there were a number of
consequences, beginning with putting their license in jeopardy.
She also explained some fringe liability civil consequences that
have some economic bite there, and she noted that retail clerks,
cocktail waiters, and waitresses usually face the loss of their
job. This is in addition to the criminal liability.
SENATOR TAYLOR said that CHAR and the bar owners were supportive of
this kind of legislation because of the pressures under which they
find themselves with phoney identifications. He thought they lose
their license on a second offense, and he claimed the ABC Board has
pulled some licenses.
SENATOR DONLEY thought it was incredibly rare, but SENATOR TAYLOR
claimed the Board was getting stricter with the bars. SENATOR
DONLEY wasn't convinced.
Number 243
SENATOR DONLEY asked if there was any support from the industry on
the bill, since there didn't seem to be anyone in the audience from
the liquor industry to testify.
MS. HENRY from Ketchikan responded to the discussion claiming the
misdemeanor up to recently has not been taken very seriously, and
she said it was very difficult to find out who provides the liquor.
She claimed the person who had provided liquor to her son had
violated probation several times, had a DWI while on probation, and
smuggled marijuana into jail.
MS. HENRY thought if this person had been treated as a felon in the
beginning, it might have sent a different message. She reviewed
her complaints about the consumption of alcohol and thought it was
time to send a very clear strong message.
SENATOR DONLEY thought the best way to send a clear strong message
would be to build enough facilities to handle 700 misdemeanors now
waiting to serve time, so that when they are convicted they could
go right to jail and serve their time without waiting up to a year
or more to serve their present sentences. His final message was
the legislature should adequately finance the Correctional
institutions.
SENATOR JACKO moved to pass CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 28(JUD) am
(PENALTY FOR PROVIDING ALCOHOL TO A MINOR) from committee with
individual recommendations. Without objections, so ordered.
SENATOR TAYLOR returned HB 254 (OPEN MEETING ACT) to committee and
opened the Kenai/Soldotna teleconference to hear testimony from
GLENN SCHRADER and GENE DEKERLEGAND, both representing the Kenai
Peninsula Central Labor Council.
Number 297
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if he had the most recent committee substitute
on HB 254, and MR. SCHRADER said he did.
MR. SCHRADER had earlier expressed some annoyance at the meeting of
the Alaska Municipal League, because they charged a fee to attend.
He had written a letter to ATTORNEY GENERAL COLE, and he shared the
letter which said it was an open meeting, and they should not have
charged a fee.
MR. SCHRADER referred to Section 1 of the committee substitute,
which he thought had been transferred over to page 5, line 7
regarding a governmental body. He didn't think the change took
into consideration the corporations that receive public money such
mental health, utilities, etc., and he thought they should be
included in the legislation.
MR. SCHRADER thought executive sessions should be recorded to be
able to answer legal questions in the future. On page 3, line 28,
regarding the notice, he thought the line should read print [and]
broadcast media.
Number 351
SENATOR LITTLE noted MR. SCHRADER'S concerns and explained [or] was
used because some places in the state have neither a newspaper or
a radio station, which could make some meeting difficult to notice.
MR. SCHRADER was not convinced and asked she proposed they be
notified.
SENATOR LITTLE suggested it might be by CB or just be the required
posting at the principle office where the meeting will be held and
other places as designated by the governmental body.
SENATOR TAYLOR next called on MR. DEKERLEGAND agreed with the
testimony from MR. SCHRADER on charging a fee of $125 to attend the
Alaska Municipal League meeting, and he felt it was a double
taxation on the public. He reviewed what he thought were the
inequities of the meeting and continued to feel shut out of the
meetings.
MR. SCHRADER quoted SENATOR TAYLOR as attending the AML meetings
where nothing much happened, but he was concerned with both the
legislators as well as the members of the municipal league made a
large lobbying body for the 60 legislators. He said there were
speakers at the last meeting he would like to have heard.
Number 401
SENATOR TAYLOR expressed concern at the definition of a
"governmental body performing a judicial or quasi-judicial
function," because of the exemptions of bodies such as hospitals,
and he explained his objections. SENATOR HALFORD asked if it
included private hospitals, and they suggested possible hospitals.
SENATOR LITTLE explained the public hospitals in her area do notice
their public meetings, but she was unable to answer about the
private hospitals in the state. She suggested that TOM BETTAKER,
from the AML Legislative Committee, might have some better answers.
MR. BETTAKER didn't think there was a problem since the law only
applied to governmental bodies, which would include only public
hospitals not private hospitals.
SENATOR TAYLOR reviewed some of the private hospitals but thought
the community hospital in Petersburg would be required.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked MR. BETTAKER for an update statement from AML
and from his own perspective as to the possible undecided issues.
MR. BETTAKER thought the legislation and the work done on the
current committee substitute addresses a number of problems that
have been identified by the league and other groups that have
worked on the act. He thought these included the definition of
when a meeting is covered, when the meeting should occur, and how
far the statute should progress as far as advisory groups that
advise advisory groups. He also thought it included the staff of
a mayor as addressed by the legislation. He suggested people can
always find a hole in any legislation, but he thought the
definitions were clear and covered the remedies for violations for
the finality of decisions.
MR. BETTAKER thought the bill was being used to find technicalities
to attack political disagreements, and he describe some of these.
Number 455
SENATOR TAYLOR said the changes in the latest committee substitute
were highlighted on page 3 starting with the word "subject" to the
top of page 4, ending with the word "meetings." On page 5, was
highlighted "by members collectively" and inserted paragraph 2 of
line 14 through 17.
SENATOR LITTLE moved to adopt SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO.
254(JUD)(8-LSO859\S) in lieu of 8-LSO859\Q. Without objections, so
ordered.
SENATOR LITTLE explained the cooperative group that has been
meeting recently, within the last hour, agreed to another change
that had been a concern.
SENATOR LITTLE moved to insert on page 5, line 10, after
governmental body the words or chief elected executive officer,
which then read: "or (B) make recommendations directly to another
government body or chief elected executive officer authorized to
take action on matter that is the subject of the recommendations,"
She quoted a previous person who testified a mayor's blue ribbon
meeting would have to be held in public session under this language
since they did not make recommendations to another governmental
body but to an individual who appointed them.
SENATOR LITTLE said this change would require the existing
condition to continue, whereas, if a mayor appoints a blue ribbon
commission to study a specific item, the meetings must be held in
public with notification.
SENATOR TAYLOR maintained his objections on the amendment for
purposes of discussion, and he expressed serious concerns this
provision carries the specific requirements of open meetings on
down to the sub-committee level. He gave some examples of how
cumbersome he thought it would be to use.
Number 502
SENATOR LITTLE suggested it was one of those grey areas and
questionable as to whether the open meetings act applies to the
sub-committees. She explained so long as the sub-committee reports
to a committee that actually makes decisions, they would need to
meet in open session.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked how we differentiate between the committee
which forms itself up and comes in to make a recommendation, and
the committee formed by the governmental body or its executive.
SENATOR LITTLE questioned whether there needed to be a distinction
between those two, and SENATOR TAYLOR referred to his previous
examples to say he wouldn't want to do so. He gave some examples
of organizations he wanted to scrutinize.
SENATOR TAYLOR also questioned the use of the words authorized and
authority. SENATOR LITTLE disputed some of his understanding of
the directions, and she explained her understanding of the
directions for the sub-committee to meet in public.
SENATOR TAYLOR claimed the committee was authorized to take action
on the subject of the recommendation, and he used the example of a
city council taking action as a home rule municipality on any
subject. He said a committee could form and make recommendations
under subsection (b). SENATOR DONLEY suggested the use of
governmental authority and explained why he thought it was a better er
choice so it wouldn't be just an ad hoc group.
SENATOR LITTLE claimed the committee was talking about a
governmental body and not any group that organizes itself to make
recommendations. She listed assemblies, councils, boards,
commissions, and committees appointed by the mayor of a town or the
governor of the state to establish public policies. She did not
understand the concerns of SENATORS TAYLOR and DONLEY.
SENATOR TAYLOR read the directions as being vague and used the PTA
as an example of when the mandate for noticing the meeting brings
them into the scope of the open meetings act. SENATOR DONLEY
thought the PTA had more status than an ad hoc group.
Number 552
SENATOR LITTLE bargained that after the passage of the present
amendment, she would offer another amendment , which she thought
might clarify the intent.
SENATOR TAYLOR returned to the first amendment which would insert
on page 5, line 10, after governmental body the words or chief
elected executive officer. Without objections, so ordered.
SENATOR LITTLE moved to add on line 8 of page 5 to add after
similar body the words of a public entity so the language would
read: "... commission, committee or other similar body of a public
entity with the authority ..." SENATOR JACKO asked if the
amendment accomplished what was intended. SENATOR TAYLOR thought
it would and explained why.
TAPE 94-21, SIDE B
Number 001
SENATOR TAYLOR continued a general discussion with the committee
members on the amendment in relation to compliance with the open
meetings act. Without objections, SENATOR TAYLOR announced the
passage of the amendment.
SENATOR DONLEY returned to SENATOR TAYLOR'S example of the PTA to
explain he now thought they were under the open meetings act.
SENATOR LITTLE claimed the change just made in her amendment would
exempt them and explained why she thought so. SENATOR DONLEY
didn't think that was clear and described their close ties to the
school district.
SENATOR TAYLOR said SENATOR DONLEY was probably correct and
suggested the need for "creation by authority of." SENATOR DONLEY
said he was seeking clarification since it was a group participated
in by people all across the state. There was a discussion as to
whether they should be in or out, and SENATOR TAYLOR wanted them
out, but he said others probably want them under the open meetings
act. The discussion continued with SENATOR DONLEY describing
possible distinctive status of the group.
SENATOR LITTLE asked MR. BETTAKER from the AML Legislative
Committee if he thought by changing the amended language, just
adopted, to add created by would solve the designation of the PTA
groups.
MR. BETTAKER said he was thinking about language that might fit,
and there was some general discussion of possible changes in
wording. He explained the question dealt with which groups are
covered, not who created them, and he thought the creation would
have to be put in some other place in the legislation. There was
some discussion of his points, and SENATOR TAYLOR thought it would
take additional work.
Number 042
SENATOR LITTLE felt the phrase, of a public entity, was acceptable e
as currently used and thought it difficult to make the PTA a public
entity. She said it received no public funds and is a private
group.
MR. BETTAKER explained the PTA would not be a body of public
entity, but in some districts, they are officially recognized as a
committee with a role in the process of making recommendations
directly to the school board. He also explained how the PTA
achieves special status in some districts and not others.
SENATOR DONLEY thought the only way out was to exempt them, and
SENATOR JACKO asked about other organizations that might be exempt.
SENATOR TAYLOR proposed subparagraph (B) for elimination, and he
explained his reasons.
SENATOR LITTLE thought the goal should be, wherever possible and
practical, to hold open meetings in order to involve the public as
much as possible in activities by governmental bodies. She
defended subparagraph (B) as being the product of anguish from many
people and suggested it be left in place. SENATOR LITTLE described
entities that wanted even more openness in this governmental body
definition to include committees appointed by heads of departments,
and she described other examples. She considered it a compromise.
Number 085
SENATOR DONLEY asked that there be some discussion about the PTA
example, and he described meetings of parents from ordinary to
sophisticated, who might be intimidated by making the process too
difficult. He continued to describe the interaction of these
parents on other levels, such as bridge games, and he feared these
people would become victims of the open meetings act. He wanted to
have some discussion.
SENATOR LITTLE tried to assure SENATOR DONLEY the PTA would not be
considered a public entity and their meetings would not be under
the open meetings act, plus there would be no problem with four
parents playing bridge together. She stressed her opinion that a
PTA was not of a public entity.
SENATOR TAYLOR thought the concern expressed committee is whether
or not we should make this inclusive of all sub-committee level
activities, and he took up SENATOR DONLEY'S concern about the
bridge club and the open meetings act. He claimed, with the
addition of the phrase or chief elected executive officer, this act ct
just became enforceable against the executive branch government,
where today it is on legislative branches only. He spoke at some
length on his concerns.
SENATOR JACKO moved to eliminate [or] and subparagraph (B) in
Section 7 on lines 9 through 11. SENATOR LITTLE objected.
SENATOR LITTLE asked to get the opinion of MR. SWISHER and MS.
HAGIVIG about this particular issue, because she knew they had
spent long hours on these words. SENATOR TAYLOR invited them to
testify.
Number 144
SENATOR DONLEY, in speaking to the motion, said subparagraph (B)
drags a lot of non-compensated citizens into this process under
this law, and he gave some examples. He asked about a remedy under
the act, which brought about some discussion among the senators.
MR. SWISHER explained the city council cannot draft the PTA, but
could invite them to become a special committee, which they may or
may not choose to do. He thought this moved the PTA out of the
problem of their dealing with the open meetings act.
SENATOR DONLEY asked what gave them the authority, and MR. SWISHER
said it would be the same as the folks in the first two rows might
have if decided to get together and make a recommendation to you.
We can do that; you don't have to listen.
SENATOR DONLEY questioned the relationship between the school
district and the PTA. MR. SWISHER said the PTA does not have to
accept a special relationship offered by the city council or
borough.
SENATOR TAYLOR claimed that if they did accept the relationship
they would then come under the open meetings act, and MR. SWISHER
said they did. SENATOR DONLEY thought MR. SWISHER was being more
specific, but SENATOR DONLEY said this was open for more general
circumstance. He discussed some possible instances of this
reasoning, and talked about rival PTA's.
MR. SWISHER said if the school board created them as an advisory
group to the school board, then SENATOR DONLEY and SENATOR TAYLOR
would be correct about being of a public entity.
MS. HAGIVIG concurred with MR. SWISHER'S testimony, and she said
KAREN ROBINSON had gone to ask TAM COOK about PTA's specifically.
She also explained PTA's as organized at both the state and
national level with their own set of by-laws, has a very specific
structure, and are a completely separate, private entity, but the
school boards may recognize them as a special interest group that
has a special relationship with the school district. She said,
unless they are specifically delegated to do a particular task for
the school board, and accept.
SENATOR DONLEY wanted to know where that assertion was said, and
MS. HAGIVIG said it wasn't specifically said there. She continued
to quote from previous testimony on the autonomy of school boards.
SENATOR DONLEY argued it wasn't specifically said in the bill and
described the problem from the legislative perspective.
MS. HAGIVIG described many nuances in existing open meetings act
that have been consistently tested in court, and she claimed public
officials have been left at the mercy of any given court decision.
SENATOR DONLEY said that he agreed with her and thought it should
be specifically stated in the legislation. MS. HAGIVIG explained
they have tried to be comprehensive in general terms. SENATOR
JACKO asked her if there were other groups she could list.
Number 200
SENATOR LITTLE said eliminating subparagraph (B) would also
eliminate nearly all advisory groups at all levels from falling
under the open meetings act. She didn't think that was the intent
of the legislation. She did think it made sense for the planning
commission meetings that make recommendations to the city council
to be subject to the provisions of the act.
SENATOR JACKO suggested anything discussed at the sub-committee
level would be discussed at the whole committee level, and would
not exclude the public.
SENATOR LITTLE drew on her experience as the staff administrator of
lots of planning commission meetings, to describe the level of
discussion as being much more intricate than what occurred at the
city council level, and she thought it was sensible to have those
meetings noticed and open for the public to listen to this level of
intricacy.
SENATOR TAYLOR said the planning commission would be covered under
the introductory line and subparagraph (A), but SENATOR LITTLE said
many times planning commissions are only advisory to the city
council. They discussed making policies, governmental bodies,
public entities, and the implementing of making decisions for a
public entity.
SENATOR JACKO asked if the lively planning commissions she
described open to the public, and SENATOR LITTLE said they were.
Number 240
SENATOR DONLEY described the planning and zoning as conducted in
Anchorage and the authority to take actions, unless over ruled by
the city council. SENATOR TAYLOR thought this was similar to most
home rule cities.
SENATOR TAYLOR referred to line 13 on page 5 which included
consists of two or more members, to ask MR. BETTAKER if that meant t
two or more city council members, and he suggested a change in the
sentence.
SENATOR DONLEY asked MR. BETTAKER how far down the line of decision
does the culpability extend for negating a decision, and he used
the example of a citizen's advisory committee to explain his
question.
MS. HAGIVIG explained the whole structure in the legislation does
apply for a remedy, which she thought could easily be administered
at every level, probably expeditiously, and she gave some examples.
She indicated her group, the League of Women Voters, felt strongly
much of the business of local government with a good deal of input
from advisory committees. She explained, if the borough assembly
were to specifically appoint an advisory committee to deal with a
decreet issue and return to the assembly by a date certain with a
recommendation, her organization feel they ought to be subject to
the conditions of the open meetings act.
SENATOR DONLEY said it would go all the way to the sub-committee
level. SENATOR TAYLOR agreed and they discussed their objections
to her explanation on violations and remedies.
Number 297
SENATOR TAYLOR said it was the remedy currently in law for a city
council. SENATOR JACKO seemed pleased when SENATOR TAYLOR said
they had to do it over again.
MS. HAGIVIG explained most of these kinds of committees already
consider themselves subject to the open meetings act, and she
continued to explain the value of the open meetings act, as well as
the remedies.
SENATOR DONLEY shifted to the consideration of community councils
in Anchorage, where he explained they were advisory to the assembly
and officially authorized under city government. He explained the
membership is everyone who lives in that area, and he asked how to
deal with them.
SENATOR TAYLOR suggested they follow the procedures of the
legislation, but SENATOR DONLEY described they live across the
street from each other. SENATOR LITTLE asked if they had officers,
and when SENATOR DONLEY said they did, she explained those would be
the ones constrained from not meeting with each other.
SENATOR DONLEY claimed his only remedy would be to specifically
exempt community councils and PTA's, and he described the informal
grass roots aspects of the community councils. He described it as
a membership rather than a formal committee.
Number 339
SENATOR LITTLE said she would consider the formal members to be
those persons officially elected by the community council to take
action on their behalf.
MR. SWISHER thought it narrows the applicability of the act, and he
referred to page 1 of the legislation to the language being
stricken, to explain it applies to anyone who spends public money.
He considered it a broad and sweeping definition, and he said the
language was drafted to limit the applicability to advisors to a
governing body. He explained their attempt was to draw the
distinction between advisors to a governing body and advisors to
the advisors.
SENATOR JACKO asked for clarification as to his distinction of a
recommendation of an advisory group that is making recommendations
to a group that spends public money and whether it would be exempt.
SENATOR TAYLOR said "public money" was thrown out altogether as a
qualifier, because it is being deleted on the first page, but has
been redefined as those who fall within the level of qualification
on page 5 by specific definitions. He outlined the problems he saw
in these definitions, and speculated there was a larger amount of
power in recommendations from a community council rather than a
mayor's commission recommendations. He voiced suspicions there
would be those who would claim the councils needed to be under the
open meetings act, because of their power.
Number 386
There was a general discussion about community councils since they
also exist in the Mat-Su Valley, and MS. HAGIVIG said they were now
in Juneau, but under a different structure. There was a discussion
as to where it would be as far as the legislation, and MS. HAGIVIG
said the meetings were noticed.
SENATOR DONLEY reviewed the requirements and procedures in the
Anchorage community councils, but he did want the meetings opened
and the process noticed. He expressed concern about certain
ramifications which limited the ability of citizens to interact
over issues of normal concern.
SENATOR JACKO expressed concern the legislation would inhibit the
chatty grass roots citizens that want to get involved, and he
thought there might be other groups that need to be examined.
SENATOR DONLEY had no objections to the process, but when dealing
with private citizens, he had concerns about limiting them on their
own time. SENATOR JACKO brought up the role of the news media in
the process. SENATOR TAYLOR was concerned the opportunities to
further misuse this act for obstructing bonafide activities of the
governmental entity.
SENATOR TAYLOR thought the addition of the words or chief elected
executive officer, invaded the executive branch, and he continued
to defend his position.
Number 440
SENATOR LITTLE suggested, to take care of the community council
issue, to change the wording to or other similar body under control rol
of a public entity, and she explained the reasons for her suggested d
change.
There ensued a general discussion of grass roots communication
requirements, phone banks, split requirements, and public meetings.
MS. HAGIVIG said she understood the distinction, but she was not
aware of the structure of the community councils in Anchorage. She
thought that while the councils were recognized, they didn't have
any particular authority under the Anchorage Municipality. She
continued the discuss with SENATOR DONLEY the relationship the
councils have with the municipality.
SENATOR DONLEY suggested that rather than eliminating subparagraph
(B), to make all of the notice requirements apply to all those
groups, and he discussed it in relation to communications
restrictions.
MS. HAGIVIG said she understood the special distinctions, and gave
some examples of her understanding.
After some discussion of the previous amendment, SENATOR JACKO
restated the amendment: He moved to eliminate [or] on line 9,
subparagraph (B) in Section 7 on lines 9 through 11, and the [;] on
page 13.
SENATOR LITTLE again it would remove all advisory groups at all
levels of government from noticing their meetings and having open
meetings under this act, and she suggested they look for other ways
to handle the problem.
SENATOR DONLEY said he supported the groups keeping their
publication notices and whatever it takes to allow everyone to
participate. He doesn't support taking them out altogether, but
indicated he would like to explore other options.
SENATOR TAYLOR suggested it be to spin it off and put it back into
Section 5, page 3, beginning with line 24 (e) Reasonable public
notice shall be given for all meetings ....
There was some discussion as to which meeting would be on the list,
.....
TAPE 94-22, SIDE A
Number 001
SENATOR LITTLE led the committee members and members of committee
that worked on the legislation in a discussion of ways to make the
legislation more acceptable to the detractors, to restructure
meetings, and to simplify the compliance of the act.
SENATOR DONLEY answered questions by MS. HAGIVIG about the
community councils as to their relationship to the municipality,
saying they are part of the Anchorage charter and there are
requirements to planning and zoning people get a recommendation
from the community council.
Number 049
SENATOR HALFORD asked if there was any legal review dealing with
specific advisory bodies. He asked several more related questions
about the open meetings act. SENATOR TAYLOR was not aware of any,
but called on MR. BETTAKER for information.
MR. BETTAKER described a case in Anchorage, which has caused some
confusion in the supreme court in this area, because no one knows
what the law covers now. He explained the defined it as any part
of the process that leads to the ultimate decision making, which
clearly implies that every advisory group, all the way down the
line that makes a recommendation, is covered. He said it was a
factor in dealing with this legislation.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if the dictamen was within the case, and
whether the case did not turn on an advisory committee making the
recommendation, but was a school board or city council. After some
discussion, MR. BETTAKER said SENATOR TAYLOR was correct and was an
inappropriate extension in the law.
Number 104
JOHN MCKAY, representing the Alaska Newspaper Association, asked to
make some comments, and SENATOR TAYLOR agreed.
MR. MCKAY, in answer to SENATOR HALFORD'S question, reviewed the
present law which covers advisory groups, explained what happens
with the present change in the law. He said his group strongly
opposed the proposed amendment, saying it would substantially gut
the present law. He also explained it has applied to the executive
branch for the last 30 years, but doesn't apply to the legislative
branch. He finally explained the legislation as the preservation
of the status quo.
SENATOR TAYLOR said he didn't want it extending to a mayor at this
point, but MR. MCKAY explained it already does, and he gave some
examples.
SENATOR JACKO called for the question on his previous amendment.
SENATOR TAYLOR called for a vote on SENATOR JACKO'S move to
eliminate [or] on line 9, subparagraph (B) in Section 7 on lines 9
through 11, and the [;] on page 13 of SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE
BILL NO. 254(JUD). The roll call was taken with the following
results: SENATORS TAYLOR, HALFORD, and JACKO voted "yea," and
SENATORS LITTLE and DONLEY voted "nay." SENATOR TAYLOR stated the
motion carried.
SENATOR HALFORD suggested returning to Section 5, page 3, beginning
with line 24 (e) Reasonable public notice shall be given for all
meetings ..., because he thought it was a legitimate motion.
SENATOR HALFORD explained he voted for the deletion with the
understanding that it would be dealt with in some way.
Number 168
SENATOR LITTLE said those were two separate issues, the first being
that all advisory groups, at all levels, that don't have the
authority to establish policies are not covered by the open
meetings act. She didn't think that was the intent of the
legislation, and she claimed the committee was careful not to
reduce what is currently in statute.
MR. SWISHER suggested a new section saying exactly what the
legislators want, and SENATOR HALFORD said he would support that,
but SENATOR TAYLOR was still concerned about the activities of the
present advisory committees. SENATOR HALFORD said he assumed they
were not advisory, but SENATOR DONLEY described the clout of those
in Anchorage. SENATOR HALFORD said he was looking at the community
council type examples, and SENATOR TAYLOR talked about planning and
zoning commissions.
Number 208
SENATOR TAYLOR thought the councils in Ketchikan were advisory
only, but someone from the audience disputed this. There was some
discussion on decision making advisory groups, and SENATOR LITTLE
provided information on those groups that advise city councils.
SENATOR HALFORD read what was left of Section 7, paragraph (1), and
reviewed what he considered the essence of the section. SENATOR
TAYLOR and SENATOR DONLEY joined the discussion saying they thought
that would cover most or all of the advisory groups. SENATOR
HALFORD thought the committee needed an exact answer, and go from
there.
SENATOR DONLEY thought the open meetings act should apply to the
executive branch, too, and he explained his reasons. There was
discussion as to whether it should have been deleted, and SENATOR
JACKO asked if it would include the governor. SENATOR DONLEY used
a city manager, appointed by the city council, to determine he/she
was like a strong mayor, and SENATOR JACKO added, "like a CEO."
Number 252
SENATOR DONLEY continued the scenario to include the city manager
appointing a committee to advise him on some important policy issue
to the community. He asked if the city manager would be outside
the scope of the legislation as amended or would the committee have
to be noticed and open.
SENATOR HALFORD thought the notice requirements should be broadly
defined, but he felt people felt harassed by the no communication
provisions, and he used the examples of small communities of
informal groups that don't have any power to really do anything.
He described the differences in those persons who stand for
elections and their dealing with advisory groups.
SENATOR LITTLE moved to pass a technical amendment to remove
subparagraph (A) on line 8 of page 5, and put a [.] after entity,
since there is no longer a subparagraph (B). Without objections,
so ordered.
SENATOR TAYLOR reminded members that after the word body on line 8 8
of page 5, was inserted the words of a public entity. He said the e
words under the control of which had been suggested earlier by
SENATOR LITTLE.
SENATOR LITTLE offered to meet with the groups that have been
working on the legislation to come up with some language that would
meet SENATOR HALFORD'S requested concerns regarding sub-committees,
if the working groups are still willing to participate in the
discussion.
SENATOR TAYLOR thought most of the people she was talking about
were left in the provision, and he explained his reasons.
Number 306
SENATOR HALFORD thought a method of reaching where the committee
wants to go might be to add a definition of an "advisory body" to
Section 7 on page 5. Then when referring to the section on notice
requirements, it would apply to both "governmental bodies" and
"advisory bodies." SENATOR HALFORD thought the section dealing
with notice requirements would apply to both advisory bodies and
governmental bodies, while the communication requirements would not
apply to advisory bodies.
SENATOR LITTLE asked about a planning commission as an advisory
body, but SENATOR HALFORD said he wasn't thinking of a planning
commission as an advisory body. He thought a planning commission
was always covered, because they have the authority to do
something. SENATOR LITTLE added, "in some cases."
SENATOR HALFORD said he assumed the committee would receive an
answer as to the status of the planning commission, and said he did
not intend a planning commission, which deals with huge amounts of
money in zoning, to be covered. He thought more in terms of a
community council group.
SENATOR HALFORD brought up the subject of per diem and travel
expenses for some of the advisory groups, and he was looking for
those that were very informal, the ones who pay their own way.
They also don't have the power to effect policy and economic
decisions, but there are advisory groups on which, he concluded,
the legislature spent a lot of money.
SENATOR DONLEY asked the committee for a decision on executive
branch question, and he said he would like to see the notification
apply to groups. He said some of the interpretation was what it
was thought to be now, from a review of the testimony.
Number 350
There was a general discussion of this issue with varying
conclusions, and SENATOR LITTLE thought the current law includes
the executive branch, departments, divisions, bureaus, agencies,
and all other boards. This brought about a continuation of the
discussion as to whether the legislative branch should be covered,
and there was considerable quibbling over the definition of "a
body."
SENATOR LITTLE asked for clear directions for the working group for
some ideas for a committee substitute. SENATOR TAYLOR suggested
the definition for "advisory groups" by SENATOR HALFORD should be
included. SENATOR DONLEY thought those groups that are either
salaried or compensated should also be addressed.
SENATOR HALFORD thought whether or not a group receives
compensation should be included in the definition, and those
receiving compensation should not be considered as an advisory
body. There was general agreement on this part of the definition,
and SENATOR DONLEY said it would solve the community council
problem since none of them got paid at the community council level.
SENATOR TAYLOR and SENATOR HALFORD led a discussion on the reality
of the situation in crafting another committee substitute. SENATOR
LITTLE suggested a separate open meetings act that would apply to
the executive branch, but there was objection for various reasons.
SENATOR HALFORD thought the committee should be sensitive to
getting legislation enacted, and there was general agreement from
all.
Number 399
SENATOR TAYLOR decided to hold the bill for another meeting.
SENATOR TAYLOR brought SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 49, urging the
Congress to reevaluate its practice of imposing unfounded mandates
on state and local governments.
After a short discussion, SENATOR HALFORD moved to pass SENATE
JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 49 (UNFUNDED MANDATES) from committee with
individual recommendations. Without objections, so ordered.
There being no further business to come before the committee, the
meeting was adjourned at 3:40 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|