Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/08/1993 02:30 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 8, 1993
2:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Robin Taylor, Chairman
Senator Rick Halford, Vice-Chairman
Senator George Jacko
Senator Dave Donley
Senator Suzanne Little
OTHERS PRESENT
Senator Bert Sharp
Senator Loren Leman
MEMBERS ABSENT
NONE
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 67
"An Act amending provisions of ch. 66, SLA 1991, that relate
to reconstitution of the corpus of the mental health trust,
the management of trust assets, and to the manner of
enforcement of the obligation to compensate the trust; and
providing for an effective date."
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 2
Relating to certification of the Alaska State Legislature's
opposition to requiring suspension of a driver's license for
drug offenses.
SENATE BILL NO. 133
"An Act relating to the revocation of a person's driver's
license, privilege to drive, or privilege to obtain a
license; and providing for an effective date."
SENATE BILL NO. 69
"An Act prohibiting employers from discriminating against
individuals who use legal products in a legal manner outside
of work."
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 3
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of
Alaska relating to terms of legislators.
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 4
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of
Alaska relating to the duration of a regular session.
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
SB 67 - See Resources minutes dated 2/3/93 and 2/5/93.
See Judiciary minutes dated 3/1/93.
SCR 2 - See Transportation minutes dated 3/2/93.
SB 133 - NONE.
SB 69 - See Labor and Commerce minutes dated 2/2/93.
See Judiciary minutes dated 2/17/93, and 3/5/93.
SJR 3 - See State Affairs minutes dated 1/20/93 and
1/22/93.
See Judiciary minutes dated 3/5/93.
SJR 4 - See State Affairs minutes dated 1/22/93.
See Judiciary minutes dated 3/5/93.
WITNESS REGISTER
Juanita Hensley, Chief
Division of Motor Vehicles
Department of Public Safety
P.O. Box 20020
Juneau, Alaska 99802
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SCR 2 & SB 133.
Joe Ambrose, Attorney
Senator Robin Taylor
State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 69.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 93-23, SIDE A
Number 001
Chairman Robin Taylor called the Judiciary Committee meeting
to order at 2:30 p.m.
SENATOR TAYLOR announced that SB 67 (MENTAL HEALTH TRUST
AMENDMENTS) had been cancelled at the request of all the
participants, who were working on a consensus agreement. He
explained there would be a hearing on the bill as soon as
the agreement was ready.
SB133
SENATOR TAYLOR introduced SCR 2 (FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY
FUNDING-DRUG ENFORCEMENT), SB 133 (REVOCATION OF DRIVER'S
LICENSE), and invited SENATOR SHARP to testify on the bills.
SENATOR SHARP emphasized the bills were sponsored by the
Senate Transportation Committee by request.
SENATOR SHARP said the two bills, SCR 2 and SB 133, were an
either/or type of legislation dealing with the revocation of
driver's licenses for a drug offense.
SENATOR SHARP explained that PL 101-516, Department of
Transportation and Related Appropriations Act, Sec. 333
mandated withholding federal-aid highway funds from states
that fail to enact legislation requiring the suspension of
an individual's driver's license upon conviction of a
violation of the federal Controlled Substances Act - or any
drug offense.
SENATOR SHARP further explained the law that provided for
revocation or suspension of drivers licenses required driver
licensing action against violators of drug offenses not
limited to moving violations - and not necessarily involving
a motor vehicle.
SENATOR SHARP said the state could avoid the withholding of
funds, first, by enacting a law that provides for revocation
or suspension of driver's licenses upon any conviction of
the Controlled Substances Act - or any drug offense.
SENATOR SHARP explained the second way would be for the
State of Alaska to submit to the Secretary of
Transportation, a certificate stating that the Governor is
opposed to the enactment or enforcement of such a law, and
the Legislature has adopted a resolution (SCR 2) expressing
its opposition to such a law. He said the Hickel
Administration had indicated a willingness to support either
approach, which means the Governor would have to include a
letter accompanying the resolution.
SENATOR SHARP described what he called the blackmail part
which states, "If a state does not meet the statutory
requirements by October 1, 1993, then 5% of the federal
highway apportionment for FY 94 shall be withheld; 5% will
be withheld also in FY 95 if the requirement is not met by
October 1, 1994, if neither action is taken by October 1,
1995, in FY 96 10% of federal funds will be withheld."
Number 095
SENATOR SHARP explained if SB 133 is passed, Alaska will
have to submit its certification by April 1, on an annual
basis, that they are enforcing the law. Once the state has
passed the resolution (SCR 2), and the resolution has been
determined to be in compliance, the Governor is required to
send a letter each year, but the Legislature is not required
to pass a resolution each year. Certification takes place
through the normal federal apportionment process in October,
which is the beginning of their fiscal year.
SENATOR SHARP said the Legislature must act on the
resolution or bill by April 1, 1993 to allow time for
certification, and he explained that many states had opted
for the resolution, because they resent the federal
government's intervention. He knew of 16 states that have
the passed the bill, but only three have been certified as
having proper statutes, which, he said, makes the odds
rather slim for Alaska.
SENATOR SHARP concluded with the statistics that 5% of $212
million of ISTEA money would be $10.6 million lost to the
state the first two years. If it went up to 10% of $212
million for the third year, it would be $21.2 million lost,
and he explained the funds can not be captured by any other
method. He said other people would be speaking to the
technicalities of the legislation.
SENATOR TAYLOR opened the meeting to questions from the
committee members.
SENATOR LITTLE asked SENATOR SHARP if the Transportation
Committee had a recommendation for proceeding with the
issue, and SENATOR SHARP suggested it would be individual
preference, but he thought it should be done expeditiously.
SENATOR LITTLE clarified that both pieces of legislation
would have the same effect and the State would continue to
receive full highway funding.
Number 159
SENATOR JACKO asked SENATOR SHARP if more states used the
resolution rather than the bill method, but SENATOR SHARP
was not sure. The bill was patterned after the once
belonging to the three states that had successfully
submitted resolutions.
SENATOR TAYLOR noted that JUANITA HENSLEY and LORN CAMPBELL
from Public Safety, and JEFF OTTESEN from DOT/PF were
available to answer questions. He asked one of them to
respond to SENATOR JACKO'S question.
MS. HENSLEY explained that the National Transportation
Highway Safety Administration is recommending the states opt
out with the resolution, and she quoted the Governor's
office as wishing to have the legislation passed, but he was
not in opposition to the resolution. She expressed concerns
that once the legislation is passed, it has to be sent to
Washington D.C. and massaged through 16 different offices,
before they will make their final approval.
SENATOR JACKO asked her if she supported the resolution as
being easier to get approved, and she agreed. They
discussed the proposal by the NTHSA to opt out, because the
legislation would have to go through the 16 agencies before
April 1 of this year.
SENATOR TAYLOR clarified she meant April 1 and not October
1, and she explained the provisions.
MS. HENSLEY raised the specter of an additional problem
affecting commercial drivers licenses being in compliance
with the Motor Vehicle Safety Law from 1986. When SENATOR
TAYLOR asked for the penalty, MS. HENSLEY said it was also
5% for two years and 10% for each year thereafter, but she
wasn't sure if it was in addition to the penalty on the drug
offenses.
Number 225
SENATOR LITTLE ask for an opinion from the Department of
Public Safety on the proposed legislation, and she quoted
Public Safety as supporting anything that would help the
safety of the public. MS. HENSLEY said the department
supported the legislation as well as the resolution, but had
reservations about revoking drivers licenses for non-driving
offenses. She praised present Alaska laws as being
sufficient to protect the public against those who drive
under the influence of drugs.
SENATOR LITTLE asked MS. HENSLEY if she thought the proposed
legislation would be a deterrent on drug offenses. MS.
HENSLEY didn't have the counseling knowledge to know whether
the penalties would prevent a person from selling or using
drugs, and she described the problems involved.
SENATOR JACKO moved to pass SCR 2 (FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY
FUNDING/DRUG ENFORCEMENT) from committee with individual
recommendations. Without objections, so ordered.
SENATOR LITTLE moved to pass SB 133 (REVOCATION OF DRIVER'S
LICENSE) from committee with individual recommendations.
Without objections, so ordered.
SENATOR TAYLOR returned SB 69 (RIGHT TO USE LAWFUL PRODUCTS)
to committee. He noted there were some proposed amendments,
and copies were distributed.
Number 307
SENATOR TAYLOR moved to adopt Amendment #1, which would add
a new entry in the definition section (d) on page 2, after
line 17 to say, "(3) "premises of the employer" includes
camps or other living accommodations provided or maintained
by an employer."
SENATOR TAYLOR led a discussion on the amendment, using the
example of preventing religiously owned camps from
prohibiting the use of lawful products in their camps. He
said other camps have also decided they don't want alcoholic
beverages in camp.
SENATOR LITTLE clarified of the sponsor, SENATOR TAYLOR,
that the bill would prevent ARCO from enforcing their "no
alcohol" requirement on the slope. SENATOR TAYLOR said that
would only apply if the amendment wasn't passed. SENATOR
LITTLE then clarified the bill would allow ARCO to maintain
their "no alcohol" prohibition, and SENATOR TAYLOR agreed.
SENATOR JACKO moved Amendment #1. Without objections, so
ordered.
SENATOR TAYLOR produced another amendment, #2, from the
Department of Administration, which was distributed.
SENATOR LITTLE asked SENATOR TAYLOR for the basic intent of
the legislation and under what circumstances, it would
apply.
SENATOR TAYLOR explained the basic intent was to provide
protection for the lawful and appropriate use of legal
substances on off-duty hours. SENATOR LITTLE asked if he
meant alcohol and tobacco, and he said "primarily."
SENATOR HALFORD thought there should be a definition of
"legal product," and there ensued a discussion of the
definition.
Number 368
SENATOR TAYLOR did not express support for the proposed
amendment from the Administration. While the committee
contemplated the amendment, SENATOR TAYLOR called on his
aide, JOE AMBROSE, to share some information on the
Disabilities Act.
MR. AMBROSE explained, in the course of doing some research
on the legislation, there was a question from ARCO as to how
the legislation would impact their program to aid people who
were in recovery for alcohol or drug abuse. Basically, the
bill wouldn't have any impact as far as their program was
concerned, but it was also discovered that under the
Americans with Disabilities Act, alcoholism is now defined
as a disability, and comes under the scope of the act.
MR. AMBROSE suggested that everyone needed to define their
obligations under the federal legislation.
SENATOR JACKO asked for an interpretation of Amendment #2
from the Administration.
MR. AMBROSE said the amendment was vague which would nullify
the purpose of the legislation, and he raised the question
of "nexus" as explained by the Administration.
Number 405
SENATOR TAYLOR was concerned the amendment did not address
reasonable standards of conduct, and he described these
concerns to get around the provisions of the act. He again
said he did not officially offer the amendment, but wanted
the committee to have the opportunity to discuss it.
SENATOR LITTLE moved Amendment #3 from the Administration
which would add a new paragraph after line 10 on page 2 to
read, "(3) discharge an individual or otherwise disadvantage
an individual with respect to compensation, terms,
conditions, or privileges of employment if the individual
fails to comply with an employer's reasonable standards of
conduct, even during nonworking hours, where the employer
cam demonstrate a close relationship between the standards
and the employer's business." SENATOR TAYLOR objected.
SENATOR JACKO asked SENATOR LITTLE for her interpretation of
the amendment. SENATOR LITTLE said she was not enthusiastic
about the bill in its entirety, but she thought the
amendment would make it more palatable, and she gave an
example.
There ensued a discuss of the amendment in relation to SATCH
CARLSON, the Raven decision on marijuana, lawful product v.
legal products, federal law, rural options, and required job
performance standards.
Number 468
SENATOR LITTLE re-introduced Amendment #2, and it passed on
a 4-1 vote.
SENATOR LITTLE asked if there was a real need for the
legislation, and SENATOR TAYLOR indicated there was lots of
support for the legislation - especially from smokers.
SENATOR JACKO moved to pass CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 69(JUD)
(RIGHT TO USE LAWFUL PRODUCTS) from committee with
individual recommendations. Without objections, so ordered.
SENATOR TAYLOR returned SJR 3 (LIMITING TERMS OF
LEGISLATORS)
and SJR 4 (90 DAY SESSION LIMIT) and asked the prime
sponsor, SENATOR LOREN LEMAN, to begin by reviewing SJR 3.
SENATOR LEMAN explained SJR 3 proposes a constitutional
amendment to limit the length of legislative service to
eight consecutive years, but allows a return to office after
a minimum two-year break in service. He gave some
historical perspective on the legislation as introduced in
previous years.
SENATOR LEMAN suggested reading the Sponsor Statement for
his reasons in sponsoring the legislation, and he maintained
the intent was supported by 75% of the public. He thought
the voters should have the chance to vote on the bill, and
thought this would make a better public perception of the
Legislature.
SENATOR LEMAN noted other versions of his legislation, but
thought they were extreme in their approaches to
limitations. SENATOR LEMAN also thought his bill
represented a reasonable compromise among various pieces of
legislation.
Number 520
SENATOR TAYLOR asked what happened to the Legislator who
served three terms in the House, and then is elected to a
four year term in the Senate.
SENATOR LEMAN reviewed previous testimony in committees that
led to a revision to allow a legislator in mid-term to
complete that term, and he said he wouldn't object to the
reinstatement of the provision. He said the alternative
would be a prohibition against running for a four year seat
after 6 years, but he would support 10 years in office.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked SENATOR LEMAN'S opinion on increasing
the terms of representatives to 4 year terms, and SENATOR
LEMAN thought it would make sense to include it in the
package. He warned against making the bill a Christmas Tree
for things that might bog down the legislation.
SENATOR LITTLE saw the problem as a concern that incumbent
legislators had a great deal of power in gaining funds for
re-election, and she asked SENATOR LEMAN if he believed that
some campaign finance reform would really address the
problem. She thought financial reform might be preferable
to limiting the term of an individual, whom the constituents
deemed a terrific representative.
SENATOR LEMAN agreed that people who support term limits
also support their own legislators, but he thought his
legislation would have a more profound effect on making
legitimate changes than campaign finance reform.
SENATOR DONLEY reviewed the debate from last year on the
concept of term limits, and said he supported provisions
that dealt with the U.S. Congress. He asked SENATOR LEMAN
if he had a position on such a provision.
SENATOR LEMAN said it wasn't included because he didn't want
to doom his bill to a certain death and guarantee a campaign
against his legislation. He thought SJR 3 had a good chance
of passing without the provision, but might enhance the
chance of passing a complete package.
Number 577
SENATOR DONLEY shared some ideas he had on the subject of
limiting congressional terms, but wouldn't be applicable
retroactively, which would allow present members another 12
years.
SENATOR LEMAN thought this could be achieved with an
effective date ...
TAPE 93-23, SIDE B
Number 001
... but he thought Alaska would be more at a disadvantage
than other states - unless other states followed suit.
SENATOR JACKO didn't think the legislation applied very well
to Alaska and thought most of the support was from urban
Alaska. He expressed his concerns about the legislation,
since he though the long-term legislators from the rural
areas in the 1980's helped balance the playing field, since
most of the resources were in the rural areas and most of
the voters were in the urban areas. He emphasized the
legislation was perceived by the people in rural Alaska as
an attack on them and said the legislation was a bad idea.
SENATOR LEMAN didn't see SJR 3 as being a disadvantage to
rural Alaska over urban, and he explained what he saw as a
fair balance of legislators between urban and rural areas.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked SENATOR DONLEY if he would be opposed
to expanding the bill to be made applicable to all other
elected and appointed bodies in the state, such as school
boards and city and borough assemblies.
SENATOR LEMAN said the Anchorage School Board and Assembly
had limited terms of 9 years in a vote taken in the 1980's,
and he thought the same principal should apply for all.
SENATOR DONLEY said he supported term limits, but he said it
should be done along with other limitations to balance the
power between the legislative and executive branch, which he
considers to be the most powerful executive branch in any
state constitution. He outlined the limitations of the 180
day limit, which limits the power of the legislature without
a corresponding limitation on the executive branch.
SENATOR DONLEY contended the legislature kept curbing their
own power without addressing the big picture to protect the
relative power of the legislature - especially in the growth
of the budget. He said the legislature needed to recognize
the impact of reducing the effectiveness of the legislature,
and there should be separate provisions brought before the
voters to balance out the decrease in the legislature's
power.
Number 062
SENATOR JACKO concurred with the remarks from SENATOR
DONLEY, and thought there should be corresponding curbs in
the executive branch.
SENATOR HALFORD said he would like to apply the remarks to
the third branch - to the election of judges. He thought
there should be more of a turn-over in judges, but the
judges would probably rule it an unconstitutional amendment.
SENATOR TAYLOR suggested the judicial retirement at 15 years
would take care of the third branch. He thought appropriate
levels of pay and retirement should be addressed in terms of
the legislature. He also thought if legislators were going
to continue to be full-time, they should be paid for it.
SENATOR LEMAN said he concurred with many of the comments,
but he said he was enough of a realist to know the chances
for the resolution to pass the Senate and House in the
current form would be difficult without some compromises.
He thought his bill was a key element in making the rest of
it happen.
SENATOR TAYLOR suggested SENATOR LEMAN review the provisions
in SJR 4 (90 DAY SESSION LIMIT).
SENATOR LEMAN explained SJR 4 was another plank in his bid
for legislative reform, and if the session is shortened, it
would enhance the opportunities for more citizens rather
than professional legislators to serve in government. He
thought the legislators could get their work done within 90
days and return to their own jobs. He invited the committee
members to read the Sponsor Statement for his bill.
Number 117
SENATOR DONLEY said he never publicly supported this intent
because it is such a complex issue, but he might be able to
support the bill, if there was some repair work to the
constitution. The first problem he observed was the
inability of the legislature to address gubernatorial vetoes
after the second year of a session, where there should be a
system designed to balance the powers between the different
branches. He described the problem and called it a pocket
veto by a monarch after the second session. Anything vetoed
after the legislators go home is dead, and short of a
special session, he said there was no way to address the
veto.
In problem #2, SENATOR DONLEY linked it with the first
problem by asking how the legislature could call a special
session the second year, since the current provisions don't
work. He said too much power resides with the presiding
officers, where, if one disagrees, it won't happen. It
wouldn't matter if all of the members wanted a special
session, one presiding officer could prevent the special
session.
SENATOR DONLEY said a Judiciary bill was introduced last
year on this subject that would allow for a call to be made
through a certification to the clerk, where a certain number
of members could ask for a special session and, it would
occur. He thought this might be a way to address the loss
of the veto over-ride authority through the 90 day limit.
SENATOR LITTLE explained when she came to Juneau she thought
in terms of limiting the session, but she could see now that
so much is involved in being here, to hear the public input,
public hearings, and participating in healthy debate on
bills before the legislature.
SENATOR JACKO concurred with the remarks on the length of
the session and most of the remarks from SENATOR LITTLE on
the committee process. He outlined the problems in the
rural communities where communication with their legislators
is difficult, and the constituents wonder why he isn't in
Juneau taking care of their interests during the summer.
Number 161
SENATOR HALFORD introduced another topic to compare the
length of legislative sessions in all of the states, where
they aren't all bound by the same terminology as Alaska,
which has consecutive calendar days. This precludes being
able to gather information from the constituents, and he
described the slow beginning of session.
SENATOR HALFORD suggested within the 90 day limit, it should
begin with a 45 day session, have a 30 day break to deal
with the constituents back home, and return to Juneau for
another 45 days. He thought the legislators would receive a
lot of intensive lobbying in their own home district by
constituents after the issues were on the table.
There ensued a general discussion on limiting the session,
special sessions, options, weekend sessions, travel, and the
lack of flexibility.
SENATOR DONLEY discussed the extent to which he would
support the bills and the modifications he thought were
needed to balance out the impact. He suggested two
modifications, the first being to change the session to more
correspond to the revenue projections, and second, to
introduce a mandatory special session to review the
gubernatorial vetoes, or make it easier to call a special
session.
SENATOR TAYLOR opined there would be significant amendments
to be offered by the committee members at the next hearing
on the bills. He said he would hold them in committee to be
heard in about 10 days - to give members time to complete
their amendments.
There being no further business to come before the
committee, the meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|