Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/05/1995 01:58 PM JUD
* first hearing in first committee of referral
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE April 5, 1995 1:58 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Senator Robin Taylor, Chairman Senator Lyda Green, Vice-Chairman Senator Mike Miller Senator Al Adams Senator Johnny Ellis MEMBERS ABSENT None COMMITTEE CALENDAR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 4(STA)(title am) "An Act allowing, for the purposes of permanent fund dividend eligibility, an individual to accompany, as the spouse or minor or disabled dependent, another eligible resident who is absent for vocational, professional, or other specific education for which a comparable program is not reasonably available in the state, for secondary or postsecondary education, for military service, for medical treatment, for service in the Congress or in the Peace Corps, or for other reasons that the commissioner of revenue may establish by regulation; requiring, for the purposes of permanent fund dividend eligibility, an individual who is not physically present in the state to maintain and demonstrate at all times an intent to return to the state to remain permanently; relating to the eligibility for 1992, 1993, and 1994 permanent fund dividends of certain spouses and dependents of eligible applicants; relating to appeal periods for certain 1994 permanent fund dividends; and providing for an effective date." CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 53(L&C) "An Act relating to consumer credit insurance; to regulation of risk retention or purchasing groups; to preemption of the regulation of insurance agents and insurance producers; to the general powers of the director of the division of insurance; to insurance examination hearings; to insurer certificates of authority; to annual and quarterly statements, taxes, and prohibited acts of insurers; to reinsurance credit allowed a domestic insurer; to risk based capital for insurers; to insurer assets and liabilities; to insurer investments; to insurance holding companies; to regulation, licensing, and examination of insurance producers, managing general agents, third-party administrators, brokers, independent adjusters, and reinsurance intermediary managers; to surplus lines insurance; to insurance trade practices and criminal insurance acts; to premium increases in automobile insurance; to insurance rating; to assigned risk pools; to filing and approval of certain insurance policy forms; to required insurance coverage for acupuncture, nurse midwives' services, mammography, and phenylketonuria; to health insurance provided by small employers; to transfer of an insurer's status as a domestic insurer; to quarterly statements of benevolent associations, fraternal benefit societies, and health maintenance organizations; to reciprocal insurers; to the definition of `member insurer' for purposes of the Alaska Life and Disability Insurance Guaranty Association; to electronic insurance data transfer and insurance funds transfer; to the definitions of `managing general agent' and `person' applicable to insurance law; to automobile assigned risk plans; placing a person employed by the division of insurance as an actuary or assistant actuary into the exempt service; amending Alaska Rule of Civil Procedure 45; and providing for an effective date." SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 14 - WORKSESSION Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to certain public corporations. PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION HB 4 - See State Affairs minutes dated 3/21/95 and 3/28/95. SB 53 - See Labor and Commerce minutes dated 2/28/95 and 3/2/95. See Judiciary minutes dated 3/27/95. SJR 14 - See State Affairs minutes dated 2/21/95. See Judiciary minutes dated 3/22/95. WITNESS REGISTER Rod Mourant Legislative Aide to Rep. Kott Alaska State Capitol Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182 POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on CSHB 4(STA) Title Am Mike McGee, Chief Permanent Fund Dividend Division Department of Revenue P.O. Box 110460 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0460 POSITION STATEMENT: Supports CSHB 4(STA) Title Am Marianne Burke, Director Division of Insurance P.O. Box 110805 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0805 POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on CSSB 53(L&C) Senator Rick Halford Alaska State Capitol Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182 POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SJR 14 Terri Lauterbach Legislative Legal Services Legislative Affairs Agency 130 Seward St., Suite 409 Juneau, AK 99801-2105 POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on SJR 14 Jim Baldwin Assistant Attorney General Department of Law P.O. Box 110300 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300 POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on SJR 14 Judge Thomas Stewart Alaska Court System P.O. Box 114100 Juneau, AK 99811-4100 POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SJR 14 ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 95-17, SIDE A Number 001 4/5/95 HB 4 PERMANENT FUND DIVIDEND ELIGIBILITY CHAIRMAN ROBIN TAYLOR called the Judiciary Committee meeting to order at 1:38 p.m. The first order of business before the committee was CSHB 4 (STA) title am, sponsored by Representative Kott. ROD MOURANT, legislative aide to the sponsor of HB 4, explained the measure as follows. CSHB 4(STA) title am reinstates a previous policy allowing the spouses who accompany residents out of state for allowable absences to be eligible to receive a permanent fund dividend while out of state. The spouse must also qualify as an Alaska resident prior to leaving the state. This policy was changed as the result of the Zyler vs. the State of Alaska case in 1993. In 1992, 25 individuals were denied permanent fund dividends under the changed policy, in 1993, 200 individuals were denied, and in 1994 approximately 1300 individuals were denied. Allowable absences include college and vocational training, medical treatment, and military duty. The bill allows for the retroactive payment of the cases denied as a result of the Zyler case. The administrative cost estimated by the Department of Revenue is $600 to process the appeals files. Number 067 SENATOR ADAMS asked how an applicant would comply with the language, "maintains and demonstrates at all times an intent," on page 3, lines 10-11. He asked if proof of voter registration would fulfill that requirement. MR. MOURANT responded voter registration by itself is not a sole indicator of residency of any state. He clarified that intent to return to Alaska is already in regulation; the bill would place that requirement in statute. Number 097 SENATOR ADAMS asked what the cost of paying the permanent fund dividends, denied since 1992 because of the Zyler case, would be. He commented there are times when in-state residents have been denied permanent fund dividends because they missed the filing deadline by one or two days. He suggested those people also be allowed to re-apply. MR. MOURANT was unable to provide the information but offered to calculate those costs. SENATOR TAYLOR noted the fiscal impact would be on the Permanent Fund, not the General Fund. MR. MOURANT stated the Permanent Fund Division has adequate funds to cover the retroactive payments. Number 120 SENATOR TAYLOR shared Senator Adams' concern about other people who are denied their dividends unfairly and about the department's system of acknowledging receipt of the applications. He suggested creating a hearing board to review such cases. He commented the department appears to go to extraordinary efforts to make sure certain people do not get their dividends, especially military spouses. SENATOR TAYLOR also commented the objective standards for allowable absences has been deleted in Section 3. MR. MOURANT explained that at the department's request, the allowable absence section of statute was renumbered and restructured and appears in Section 2. Number 164 MIKE McGEE, Chief of Permanent Fund Dividend Operations, stated the department supports CSHB 4(STA) title am. He clarified the allowable absences that the bill is designed to reinstate were established in 1982, but were excluded because of the Zyler case. The changes on page 3, section 3, separate the residency definition from allowable absences, as that is part of the conflict in the Zyler case. Regarding the receipt of application issue discussed by Senator Taylor, Mr. McGee noted the applicant is sent a receipt card to verify receipt of the application. The department has announced that applicants who do not receive the receipt card by April 15 should notify the department. SENATOR TAYLOR stated the problem is that the department does not know who did not apply therefore does not know who to notify. MR. McGEE indicated if an applicant determines they did not receive a receipt card after the filing deadline, but have certain proofs that they filed, they can request to reapply until September. Number 200 SENATOR ADAMS asked for the department's interpretation of Section 3, lines 10-11. MR. McGEE replied that language defines a state resident in conjunction with AS 01.10.055. SENATOR ADAMS asked whether the bill requires a resident to be a registered voter. MR. McGEE responded a person does not have to be a registered voter to be a resident. SENATOR ADAMS asked if the spouse of an applicant in the military in North Carolina could be a registered voter in North Carolina, and still qualify for a permanent fund dividend. MR. McGEE clarified if an applicant files from outside the state, that person must fill out a supplemental schedule which requires the disclosure of actions that may be inconsistent with being a resident. If a person registers to vote in another state, thereby declaring residency in another state, that person would become ineligible for a permanent fund dividend. Number 236 SENATOR ADAMS noted the filing deadline keeps changing and asked how many Alaskans, from rural or urban communities, have missed the filing deadline. MR. McGEE estimated there are 2100 unsolicited late file applications per year. SENATOR ADAMS felt those applicants should be accounted for in this bill. SENATOR ADAMS asked what the total cost of paying the retroactive dividends specified in CSHB 4 (STA) title am would be if the bill passes. MR. McGEE replied the amount would differ each year. MR. McGee asserted this bill corrects a conflict between the statutes and regulations, determined by a court decision. The issue of filing deadlines is a different one. Number 274 SENATOR MILLER referred to Section 3, and stated although he agrees with what the bill does, statute should not follow regulations; and Section 3 does just that. MR. McGEE noted AS 01.10.055 contains that language. SENATOR MILLER commented different statutes pertain to residency. Number 294 SENATOR ELLIS asked if the Permanent Fund Division investigates applicants to determine if they are registered to vote outside of Alaska. MR. McGEE replied the Permanent Fund Division is able to match records with the Department of Defense and among state agencies, however it would not be practical to match records with other states. They do verify information on a case-by-case basis, if an applicant appeals a denial. SENATOR ELLIS asked about the fiscal impact of the retroactive payments made under CSHB 4(STA) title am on future dividends. MR. McGEE indicated there are only a few individuals that would be served by the retroactive clause, and that cost would not have any impact on future dividends because there is enough money in the fund now from overestimates based on the projected number of eligible individuals for those years. SENATOR ELLIS requested information from the division on the exact number of applicants affected by the retroactivity clause, and the cost of those payments. Number 339 SENATOR MILLER questioned if spouses of college students are the largest group that have been denied, and spouses of military personnel are the second largest. MR. McGEE replied affirmatively, and clarified there are 677 spouses of college students, and 292 military spouses that have been denied. SENATOR ADAMS asked about the effect of Section 6. MR. McGEE stated that is to make the provisions in the bill consistent in statute, during the years applicants were denied because of the court decision. SENATOR ADAMS noted he wanted to review the possibility of including late filers in the bill. Senator Taylor announced the bill would be held over. 4/5/95 SB 53 OMNIBUS INSURANCE REFORM The committee took up CSSB 53(L&C). SENATOR TAYLOR announced the proposed committee substitute deletes the credit/life provisions due to testimony taken at the last meeting. The department wishes can submit another bill if it wishes to pursue those provisions. SENATOR ADAMS asked if the proposed committee substitute includes the three amendments. SENATOR TAYLOR noted it does not. SENATOR ADAMS moved to adopt the work draft labeled 9-LSO467\G, dated 3/30/95, as the committee substitute. SENATOR ELLIS objected for purposes of discussion. He asked if the Division of Insurance acquiesced to the elimination of the credit/life provisions of CSSB 53(L&C). SENATOR TAYLOR relinquished the chair to Senator Miller in order to testify before another committee. Number 390 MARIANNE BURKE, Director of the Division of Insurance, stated the Division received written comments on Sections 80-94 from the three individuals who testified on the bill via teleconference. The Division's intent is to resubmit those sections as a separate bill, incorporating the comments made where appropriate. The Division did agree to the deletion of those sections from CSSB 53(L&C) in order for the bill to move forward. Number 404 SENATOR ELLIS commented a new bill containing Sections 80-94 would have to be submitted by the Governor, and will never see the light of day. He noted the comments were made by three insurance companies from elsewhere, and he believed the wise course would have been to try to work with those comments and amend the bill to retain those sections in the bill in a more agreeable form. SENATOR MILLER asked if Sections 80-94 were in last year's bill. MS. BURKE replied affirmatively. SENATOR ELLIS maintained his objection to the adoption of CSSB 53(JUD). A roll call vote was taken with the following result: Senators Green and Miller voted "Yea," and Senators Adams and Ellis voted "Nay," therefore the motion failed. SENATOR TAYLOR returned. SENATOR GREEN moved to adopt CSSB 53(JUD). SENATOR ELLIS objected. A roll call vote was taken with the following result: Senators Miller, Green and Taylor voted "Yea," and Senators Ellis and Adams voted "Nay." The motion passed. SENATOR MILLER moved the adoption of Amendment #1 by Ford (dated 4/4/95). SENATOR ELLIS objected. SENATOR ADAMS asked the Division's position on the amendments. Number 440 SENATOR TAYLOR noted Amendment #1 makes the title more specific. MS. BURKE agreed with Senator Taylor's assessment. SENATOR ELLIS removed his objection. There being no further objection, Amendment #1 was adopted. SENATOR GREEN moved to adopt Amendment #2 (Ford, 3/27/95). MS. BURKE explained the amendment makes the term "public accountant" more global. SENATOR TAYLOR noted the references to lines in Amendment #2 are inconsistent with the new committee substitute, therefore without objection, the motion was amended to synchronize the pages and line numbers to CSSB 53(JUD). There being no objection to the adoption of Amendment #2, the motion passed. Number 470 SENATOR MILLER moved CSSB 53(JUD) out of committee with individual recommendations. SENATOR ELLIS objected. A roll call vote was taken with the following result: Senators Taylor, Green, and Miller voted "Yea," and Senators Adams and Ellis voted "Nay." The motion passed. The committee began its worksession on SJR 14. 4/5/95 SJR 14 CONFIRMATION OF MEMBERS OF PUBLIC CORP WORKSESSION SENATOR TAYLOR stated the issue before the committee is to make a definitional change to provide for legislative confirmation of entities that manage state assets. TERRI LAUTERBACH, Division of Legal Services, stated the only definitional problem with the phrase "public corporation" is in relation to the Commercial Fishing and Agriculture Bank (CFAB) because it is not designated as a public corporation in statute. She also noted concern with the term "state assets" since all state agencies manage funds in one way or another. She suggested deleting the reference to state assets in SJR 14. Number 510 SENATOR ADAMS referred to Ms. Lauterbach's memo and stated CFAB is not included in the list. He thought SJR 14 was designed to cover the large corporations such as the Permanent Fund Corporation, the Alaska Industrial Development Authority (AIDA), the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC), and CFAB. MS. LAUTERBACH noted that is a policy question for Senator Halford. MS. LAUTERBACH noted the committee could amend SJR 14 to include an asset limit and define assets, in terms of loan portfolios or the size of a corporation's operating budget. Number 529 SENATOR MILLER commented more detail may create problems because a verbose constitutional amendment is unlikely to be approved. He added if legislative confirmation of CFAB members, with assets of $32 million, is included, all the others on the list will be picked up. He asserted the decision needs to be made to either include all of the entities, or limit legislative confirmation to the very largest. SENATOR HALFORD explained the term "public corporation" was only one of the terms suggested by the Division of Legal Services. In terms of priorities, he had focussed on the Permanent Fund, AHFC, ARRC, AIDA and the Alaska Science and Technology Foundation (ASTF). Those entities are prioritized in descending order according to the amount of assets they control. He discussed the Finance Committee's concerns with definitional language in SJR 14. The Administration will oppose anything that puts any requirement on administrative appointments because that power is constitutionally determined. Language that defines the significant issues, and avoids getting into ridiculous applications, such as legislative involvement with the entity the Permanent Fund Corporation contracts with to manage their active portfolio, is what needs to be designed. Number 566 JIM BALDWIN, Assistant Attorney General, commented the Department of Law discussed two problems with SJR 14 in the Finance Committee. The first problem relates to the careful balance of power between the branches of government created in the Constitution. The power of confirmation is one of those balances and belongs to the Governor. It is shared in a limited respect when the Constitution permits it. He stated a constitutional amendment to change the situation is a commendable approach, rather than a statutory change. In researching minutes of the Constitutional Convention, he found little discussion on this issue, however it appears the framers intended to ensure that the Legislature had the power to reach principal department heads. Most of the corporations have department heads on their boards, although they are not in control of the corporation. Governor Hammond sought to have the boards of directors of the larger corporations controlled by the department heads. Because the corporations have become powers unto themselves, that might be a separate basis for imposing a separate right of confirmation. TAPE 95-17, SIDE B MR. BALDWIN stated his belief that legislative confirmation power over department heads should be enough power to affect the workings of the corporations. If the Legislature chooses to make statutory changes, it could do as Governor Hammond did, by making the public corporations controlled by the department heads. MR. BALDWIN discussed the Department of Law's second concern with the amendment. The phrase, "at the head of a public corporation that manages State assets," may create problems, because some of the corporations contend that once they are created and endowed with assets, the assets become corporate assets. The corporation is a creature of statute, and therefore controlled by law, but once established it has its own assets. The Legislature directs the corporate board of directors to adopt a resolution to turn over surplus assets to the state, which comforts Wall Street, since the corporations are voluntarily giving things back to the state. The "state asset" language is technically incorrect when referring to AHFC or the ARRC, but it may apply to the Permanent Fund Corporation since it is investing a state trust fund. The reason the corporations were established with a separate and independent legal existence is to protect the state treasury from the debt those corporations underwrite. Number 562 SENATOR HALFORD disagreed with Mr. Baldwin's initial comments about the disruption of the balance of power since the constitutional framers did not envision a $15 billion corporation when they drafted the Constitution. He indicated the language needs to be targeted to accomplish specific tasks, and that is the purview of the attorneys who have worked for the Department of Law for years, and attorneys from the Division of Legal Services. Number 549 SENATOR ADAMS asked if the Department of Law has any suggested language to resolve the corporate/state asset problem. MR. BALDWIN offered to provide suggestions to the committee. He added the Governor is unable to veto a resolution. SENATOR TAYLOR agreed the language needs to target those concerns shared by all. He noted it is ludicrous that the Board of Hairdressers and Barbers needs to be confirmed by the Legislature, but people that control hundreds of millions of dollars do not have to be. Number 535 SENATOR HALFORD explained the problem is not that this Governor opposes SJR 14. The former Governor replaced virtually all of the members of the Permanent Fund Corporation board as well. If these huge corporations are managing state assets, some kind of continuity must exist, such as legislative confirmation and fixed terms. That way, no Governor can change the entire direction of the Permanent Fund Corporation with a major shift in investment policy. SENATOR TAYLOR expressed concern that by defining these entities as public corporations, new entities created in the future will be called something else to protect the autonomy of the executive branch. SENATOR HALFORD stated he had considered the term "public entity" but as the term is broadened, the question of what entities are included becomes convoluted. MR. BALDWIN noted Senator Sharp suggested to the Finance Committee that the corporation be required to have a dollar limit on its assets, however including a dollar amount in the Constitution is inadvisable because of inflation. SENATOR TAYLOR did not want to include a dollar limitation, but felt the language needs to be broad enough to include CFAB. SENATOR ELLIS clarified Senator Sharp's suggestion referred to an asset floor, not limit. Number 468 SENATOR HALFORD stated the first step is to define the term to be used, then to define the things not included by the term, and to then make sure the term does not allow for the invention of new, alternative terms to avoid this application. Language that fits those three criteria would fit the Constitution and be strongly supported by the voters, and would not do violence to the balance of power. SENATOR TAYLOR asked Senator Halford if he contemplated the constitutional amendment as also relieving the Legislature of the burden of having to confirm members of other boards and commissions. SENATOR HALFORD stated he had not contemplated that. SJR 14 merely adds to the "regulatory or quasi-judicial agency" appointments. Number 458 SENATOR GREEN stated SJR 14 does not do anything to change the Legislature's ability to obtain information from the corporations. SENATOR HALFORD agreed with Senator Green's concern about a lack of information. The confirmation process brings those members back to the table, at which time they can be questioned. MS. LAUTERBACH commented there is nothing unconstitutional about increasing reporting requirements, which could be done by statute. She also suggested changing the term "public corporation" to "public entity" in SJR 14, then listing the exceptions by function, such as advisory boards. SENATOR HALFORD suggested using the phrase "public entities that directly control state assets." MS. LAUTERBACH noted that would not resolve the issue of what assets are. SENATOR TAYLOR discussed an attempt several years ago to establish a Marine Highway Authority. He wanted the Authority to have legislative oversight. SENATOR HALFORD felt it could be defined as a principal department. MR. BALDWIN indicated art. IX, sec. 11 uses similar language that says that restrictions on debt don't apply to a public enterprise or public corporation of the state or a political subdivision. The only security is the revenues of the enterprise or corporation. He suggested using language that would include entities that issue debt. Number 380 JUDGE STEWART arrived. SENATOR TAYLOR reviewed the issues being discussed by the participants up to that point. He explained the committee is trying to find appropriate language that is sufficiently inclusive to take in those aspects of government now being operated, such as the Aerospace Energy Authority, without embroiling the Legislature in the micro-management of those entities, such as the Permanent Fund Corporation's portfolio contractors, or union pension fund representatives. The committee does not feel it would be appropriate for the Legislature to confirm people elected to those seats. He also discussed the moving target aspect, and the need to design a definition that will capture the entities created in the future, by both the Legislature and Executive branch, that should be confirmed. SENATOR HALFORD asked Judge Stewart what kind of thought was given to these kinds of entities at the time of the Constitutional Convention. He asked for advice on the balance of power issue, and whether the Legislature is reaching too far, and whether this was something that was considered in depth at the time of the Constitutional Convention. Number 350 JUDGE STEWART began by suggesting revising lines 5-7 to eliminate a redundancy as follows: SECTION 26. BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. When a board or commission is at the head of a principal department, a regulatory or quasi-judicial agency, or a public corporation that manages State assets,.... He noted "State assets" would have to be defined. Regarding the Constitutional Convention, he stated he managed the business of the Convention and was not on the floor, but doubted the issue of confirmation of public corporation members was addressed, since those corporations did not exist at the time. He thought the underlying philosophy of the Constitution, on the separation of branches, would provide for Executive branch determination of the policy of those agencies so that the people who manage those agencies express the Governor's philosophies for which he/she was elected. He stated he, personally, would be reluctant to extend legislative authority beyond what it is, however, depending on how the Governor uses this authority, some may see it as a significant misuse of that authority. He stated it was the philosophy of the majority of the Convention that the Legislature is not the Executive branch and should not be overly involved in the execution of the laws. If they don't like the Executive branch's management, they can change the laws to restrict the Governor's powers, but having authority over the election of his/her appointees is too far of a reach. He recommended, if the Legislature feels the policy change is necessary, adding a sentence to the end of SJR 14 that would constitutionally give the Legislature the power, by statute, to extend the list to these kinds of agencies. That would give the Legislature something to hang its hat on if it wished to expand or contract the list. Number 286 SENATOR MILLER commented the corporations are new beasts that have come into government in the last 20 years, and he wondered what the conversation would have been at the Constitutional Convention regarding the balance of powers if a government agency that was managing eight times the annual budget existed. JUDGE STEWART suspected they would have wanted to confirm people selected to do the job by the Governor. He felt that is consistent with his basic notion that the Governor runs the Executive branch, not the Legislature. They put in the basic language to include the head of a principal department. His concern was more with the Legislature misusing its confirmation powers to try to bind the Governor and prevent him/her from selecting his/her people. He stated he would not have a great problem with extending legislative confirmation power to the significant governmental agencies. He added there should be some limiting phrase that would ensure the Legislature does not get involved in micro-management. Number 245 MS. LAUTERBACH remarked the limitation could come by the fact that any statute is subject to veto. Therefore, as the Legislature goes through the process of making the list, adding future agencies would be part of the bargaining process with the Governor. JUDGE STEWART clarified that would work if SJR 14 gives the Legislature constitutional authority to pass legislation. SENATOR HALFORD commented at the time the Legislature considered the purchase of the Alaska Railroad, one of the railroad purchase packages had a constitutional amendment in it that would allow for confirmation of the ARRC board. He offered to research that debate. He agreed if the Legislature passed a bill requiring legislative confirmation of the Permanent Fund Corporation board, and fixed terms, the Governor would take a lot of heat from the public if he/she vetoed it. However, if the battle was over a small agency because of a management argument between the Legislature and Executive branch, the public would support a veto. He added if lines 5-7 of SJR 14 are changed, and a sentence is added to the end, the implication is that the confirmation of regulatory and quasi-judicial agencies is optional, not required. He suggested leaving lines 5-7 as is, and adding a sentence to the end that allows that any other entity may require confirmation if provided in the statute that creates the entity. MS. LAUTERBACH added the issue of whether the Legislature has the power to relinquish legislative confirmation authority has to be decided. She noted lines 5-7 were purposely drafted that way because there is some concern that the current language of the Constitution is ambiguous. She purposely did not try to resolve the ambiguity as to whether the "head of" applies to a principal department only, or to regulatory or quasi-judicial agencies as well. Number 171 SENATOR TAYLOR asked MS. LAUTERBACH to work on additional language to make the suggested changes to SJR 14, especially the last sentence. He indicated he wanted to move SJR 14 out of committee in the near future. SENATOR HALFORD stated by adding the final sentence, the language can be broad since it will not apply until a law is passed. JUDGE STEWART commented in territorial days, it was common for the Legislature to express by statute, its right to confirm. MR. BALDWIN asked if the confirmations were by one house. JUDGE STEWART replied it was, however the Convention moved away from that to a simple majority. MR. BALDWIN added there used to be a statute that required that confirmation be taken up and considered within five days. SENATOR TAYLOR adjourned the meeting at 3:10 p.m.