Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/16/1994 01:40 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 16, 1994
1:40 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Robin Taylor, Chairman
Senator Rick Halford, Vice-Chairman
Senator Dave Donley
Senator Suzanne Little
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator George Jacko
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 254
"An Act relating to open meetings of governmental bodies; and
amending Rule 82 of the Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure."
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
HB 254 - See Judiciary minutes dated 3/9/94.
WITNESS REGISTER
Gordon Tans, Attorney
Perkins Coie
1029 W 3rd #300
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: No opinion on HB 254.
Kent Swisher
Alaska Municipal League
217 Second Street #200
Juneau, alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Worked on HB 254.
Rosemary Hagivig
League of Women Voters of Alaska
P.O. Box 240423
Douglas, Alaska 99824
POSITION STATEMENT: Worked on HB 254.
Donald Long, Mayor
City of Barrow
Box 629
Barrow, Alaska 99723
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports HB 254.
John McKay
Alaska Newspaper Association
211 H Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports HB 254.
Ron Drathman
P.O. Box 12
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports HB 254.
Jeanne Donald, City Clerk
P.O. Box 307
Valdez, Alaska 99686
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports HB 254.
Doug Griffin, City Manager
P.O. Box 307
Valdez, Alaska 99686
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports HB 254.
Joan Bennett-Schrader
Coalition of Labor Union Women
P.O. Box 1587
Kenai, Alaska 99611
POSITION STATEMENT: Deferred judgement.
Glenn Schrader
Kenai Peninsula Central Labor Council
P.O. Box 1587
Kenai, Alaska 99611
POSITION STATEMENT: Deferred judgement.
Valerie Therrien, Member
Fairbanks North Star Borough Assembly
779 8th Avenue
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports HB 254.
David Stannard
1009 O'Connor
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
POSITION STATEMENT:
Tamara Brandt Cook, Director
Division of Legal Services
130 Seward Street, Suite 409
Juneau, Alaska 99801-2105
POSITION STATEMENT: Sectional Analysis - HB 254.
Ernie Line
Whispering Woods Drive
Wasilla, Alaska 99654
POSITION STATEMENT: Questioned HB 254.
Donna Fischer
P.O. Box 307
Valdez, Alaska 99686
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports HB 254.
Bonnie Hedrick
Chilkat Valley News
Box 630
Haines, Alaska 99827
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports HB 254.
Raymond R. Menaker
Box 118
Haines, Alaska 99827
POSITION STATEMENT: Questioned HB 254.
Clair Soliman
General Delivery
Haines, Alaska 99827
POSITION STATEMENT: Questioned HB 254.
Lorra Keenan
11001 Totem Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99516
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 254.
John Torgerson, President
Alaska Municipal League
35332 Kenai Spur Highway
Kenai, Alaska 99611
POSITION STATEMENT: Worked on HB 254.
Wendy Redman, Vice-President
for University Relations
University of Alaska
910 Yukon Drive
Fairbanks, Alaska 99775-2388
POSITION STATEMENT:
Bill Coffman
OFFNET from 474-7259
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
POSITION STATEMENT:
Jeff Bush, Attorney
175 South Franklin, Suite 315
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports HB 254.
Peggy Mullen
355 Lingonberry
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
POSITION STATEMENT: Questioned HB 254.
Carl Rose, Executive Director
Alaska Association of School Boards
Municipality of Alaska
P.O. Box 196650
Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6650
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports HB 254.
Kriste Lower
1419 Elmendorf
Anchorage, Alaska 99504
POSITION STATEMENT: Questioned HB 254.
Charles McKee
1508 W 43rd #7
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Unknown.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 94-17, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN ROBIN TAYLOR called the Judiciary Committee meeting to
order at 1:40 p.m.
SENATOR TAYLOR introduced HB 254 (OPEN MEETING ACT) to the
committee and explained a work draft was still being written. He
invited SENATOR LITTLE to move the committee substitute and offer
amendments for discussion purposes.
SENATOR LITTLE moved to adopt the SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL
NO. 254(JUD) (8-LSO859\Q). Without objections, so ordered.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked SENATOR LITTLE if the committee substitutes
had been distributed to the LIO's, and she said the bills had been
circulated. She acknowledged the work done by the League of Women
Voters, the Alaska Municipal League, the University of Alaska, and
representatives from the newspapers to come up with the latest
committee substitute, and she praised the groups for putting so
much time and effort into this very important issue.
Number 047
SENATOR LITTLE began by reviewing the changes to the latest
committee substitute beginning with page 2, line 16, which adds and d
with specificity to require some specificity given insofar as the
subject for which an executive session is called. On page 3, lines
1 and 2, by law is added to require that government records are not ot
subject to public disclosure.
SENATOR LITTLE proceeded with page 3, lines 14 through 17, to
explain this takes care of a concern by the University of Alaska.
Since the University is not covered by the State Personnel Act, a
tenure review committee needs to meet in executive session. On
lines 21 through 22 of page 3, she explained why but only if no
action is taken and no business of the governmental body is
conducted at the meetings was added.
Number 096
SENATOR LITTLE referred to page 4, lines 3 through 8, to explain
this language provides an administrative remedy for a possible
violation of the Open Meetings Act. SENATOR TAYLOR asked that she
read the additional language, and she further explained it would
allow the public entity to correct any wrong doing before going to
court. If it does go to court, three mitigating factors on page 4
in paragraphs (7) and (8) and paragraph (9) on page 5 could be
used.
On page 5, lines 22 through 24, SENATOR LITTLE explained the
definition of a "meeting" has been rewritten and provides that
three people, who are members of a body, so long as they are not a
quorum of that body, can meet without noticing their meeting. If
more than three people are meeting, they are not allowed to
consider a matter upon which the governmental body is empowered to
act. SENATOR TAYLOR asked for an expanded explanation of this
paragraph.
Number 152
Finally, SENATOR LITTLE referred to page 5, lines 22 through 24 and
explained the changes made are to be construed narrowly. She said
it referred to subsection (c) on line 24 of page 2 and subsection
(d), which is on line 4 at the top of page 3. She emphasized those
sections should be construed narrowly to minimize executive
sessions.
SENATOR TAYLOR questioned whether a city council would be allowed
to discuss matters with the city attorney in executive session.
SENATOR LITTLE said the city attorney would be allowed to discuss
matters in executive session, but they cannot act upon them. She
understood within the legislation an attorney can meet with the
governmental body on page 2, line 21. There was some discussion of
the provision and placement in the bill.
SENATOR LITTLE also explained in the last two days, a great deal of
work has gone into this "latest and greatest" committee substitute,
and she praised all the groups that participated in the extended
conferences as being supportive of this legislation and much better
than last year. It was considered a good compromise piece of
legislation, and she said those groups were present to support the
bill. She commended the time spent by the groups during the
interim to work out the bugs in the issue.
Number 203
SENATOR LITTLE said the participants from the League of Women
Voters and the Alaska Municipal League would like to represent
themselves regarding their part in the last several days, and
SENATOR TAYLOR agreed to their request.
SENATOR TAYLOR led a brief discussion among the members about the
changes in the committee substitute and explained the executive
branch has never been construed to have been required to meet this
requirement. He asked if the committee intended to include the
executive branch of the public entity in reference to lines 14
through 17 on page 3, and SENATOR LITTLE answered,"no, only solely
the employees." They continued to discuss this section.
SENATOR TAYLOR said, since there were a large number of those
wishing to testify, he would ask each person to limit their
testimony to no more than two minutes per person. First to testify
was GORDON TANS from Anchorage.
Number 251
MR. TANS, a municipal attorney, gave some history on municipal
cases involving the Open Meetings Act between 1980 and 1984. He
said it has become a very powerful tool to attack substantive
decisions made by local governments and costing in excess of
millions of dollars in public funds.
MR. TANS claims local governments are willing to conduct their
business in eyes of the public, but he suggested the act should be
constructed carefully to prevent the waste of money. He thought
there were factors that could be considered by the court such as a
reasonable statute of limitations that would allow the court to
undo actions that were done in violation of the policy and spirit
of the Open Meetings Act.
Number 286
MR. TANS thought the most important controversial question under
the act is the definition of a meeting, and he talked about how
many people could constitute a meeting. He said the supreme court
had indicated a willingness to go along with that in the recent
Hickel v. Southeast Conference case.
SENATOR TAYLOR questioned MR. TANS on what he considered the
statute of limitations to be on an action brought under this
section as amended under the committee substitute.
MR. TANS referred SENATOR TAYLOR to Section 6 on page 4, Subsection
(f) on lines 1 through three and thought the 180 days as mentioned
would be correct.
SENATOR TAYLOR turned to the list of prospective people to testify
in Juneau and invited KENT SWISHER employed by the Alaska Municipal
League. MR. SWISHER asked that he be accompanied by ROSEMARY
HAGIVIG, State President for the League of Women Voters of Alaska.
MR. SWISHER began by expressing appreciation to SENATOR TAYLOR and
SENATOR LITTLE for their long hard work on the legislation. He
also indicated their strong support for HB 254, and although there
were a few reservations, they would rather have the bill than moan
about minor problems with the language.
MR. SWISHER praised the progress through the meetings and said the
latest committee substitute represents a reasonable and balanced
approach that have been seen by the committee working on the act.
MS. HAGIVIG thanked the committee for holding the hearing and
making it available over the teleconference network. She explained
the League of Women Voters worked over the interim with the Alaska
Municipal League, Alaska Association of School Boards, the
University of Alaska, and the Alaska Press Club - extensively and
exhaustively.
MS. HAGIVIG described a number of drafts written during that period
with the primary interest of the League in good government and open
government. She agreed with MR. SWISHER there could be some fine
tuning on the bill, but felt this recent committee substitute meets
the concerns expressed in the final days of the 1993 legislative
session. She urged the support of the Judiciary Committee.
Number 345
SENATOR TAYLOR turned the teleconference to Barrow to hear from
DONALD LONG, the mayor.
MR. LONG agreed with the latest committee substitute and stressed
the need to clarify the Open Meetings Act as it applies to local
municipalities. He explained the problems he saw in having special
meetings, people serving on several different boards and councils
together, and the reluctance by people to run for public office for
fear of being sued for violations under the Open Meetings Act. He
thought the legislation would do much to clear up this confusion
and should be looked upon favorably.
SENATOR TAYLOR praised JOHN MCKAY for playing a significant role
throughout the legislative process, and asked him to comment on
behalf of the press club.
MR. MCKAY echoed MS. HAGIVIG'S comments of appreciation on the
long, difficult sessions of working on the act by all the parties,
and he thought it had resulted in a better piece of legislation.
He choose to focus on a couple of concerns to the members. The
first concern was the definition of a meeting, and he opined that
nearly everyone had agreed on more than three members except for
the Press Club and the Alaska Newspaper Association. He said the
dissidents would still like to see the committee consider an
amendment that would change that to two rather than three.
MR. MCKAY explained they have supported all along the proposition
that two people ought to be able to get together notwithstanding a
ruling from the Alaska Supreme Court. He further explained the
policy should be changed to include two or more because it is an
issue that comes more from the rural members from the smaller
newspapers around the state. He described the quorum problem for
such areas.
Number 398
MR. MCKAY suggested, in reference to page 5, subsection (g) line 8,
subparagraph (B), an addition after make recommendations directly
to another governmental body of words such as public officials, and d
he explained his reasons. He was concerned the present language
would exempt commissions and task forces appointed by mayors or the
governor.
MR. MCKAY agreed with objection by other groups to the waste of
public funds such as the Cordova suit, and he thought it had to do
with the elimination of personal liability. He said their concern
was more with the public process rather than suits to void action.
Lastly, MR. MCKAY expressed concern about the notice provision and
the recording of executive sessions, which were issues that have
been asked to be included from other parts of the state. Again, he
expressed appreciation for the effort, which has gone into the
legislation, and the changes made. He offered to continue to work
on the project.
SENATOR TAYLOR expressed concern the recommendations made by MR.
MCKAY were those in which he didn't prevail in the consensus of the
construction of the bill. He thought an equally long list of
concerns by other groups such as the ACLU or the Municipal
Attorney's Association. He asked MR. MCKAY if he could live with
the current bill.
Number 444
MR. MCKAY described the many other ideas that were not considered
in the legislation, but his main concern was with the definition of
the number of people constituting a meeting. He explained there
were many things they had agreed not to raise about the legislation
to the committee.
SENATOR LITTLE asked to relay some discussion about these points
brought up by MR. MCKAY, beginning with the recording of executive
sessions, which is not currently required, but engendered a number
of additional questions about the procedure. Because there seemed
to be no resolution of the problems, she said it was decided not to
include it.
SENATOR LITTLE said the same thing happened with the notice, and
she thought MR. MCKAY had hope to adopt a consistent noticing
requirement, where the public entity would have to notice in the
same fashion every time there was a meeting. She described the
impact of the guidelines requested by MR. MCKAY as being too
difficult for some communities to comply with the requirement.
In discussion of the two or three members present, SENATOR LITTLE
said the working group thought it reasonable to have three people
meet so long as they do not constitute a quorum of the body they
represent. She acknowledged the concerns on this point and said
there was some considerable dissention.
MR. MCKAY returned to the propose amendment to add "officers" to
the place cited in reference to page 5, subsection (g) line 8,
subparagraph (B), after make recommendations directly to another
governmental body to cover governor and mayor's task forces are
covered.
Number 494
SENATOR TAYLOR explained, as chairman of the committee, he did not
intend to entertain additional amendments until after the testimony
has been presented. He explained proposing amendments limiting
mayors, borough assembly members, or the governor would get him a
fast veto.
MR. MCKAY said he was not trying to control cabinet meetings, but
he did think there were some in the administration that would be
covered by the Open Meetings Act. He continued to present his
arguments in the area of governmental bodies.
Next, SENATOR TAYLOR called on RON DRATHMAN, who expressed some
concerns with the definition of meetings. He used the example of
the Homer City Council, where the mayor only votes to break a
deadlock, and asked if this would permit three members of the city
council to meet with the mayor, who is not a member of the city
council in private.
SENATOR TAYLOR clarified he meant there were four people meeting in
private to discuss city business, and MR. DRATHMAN described the
makeup of the Homer assembly. SENATOR TAYLOR asked if it would
take four members of the assembly to make a quorum, and MR.
DRATHMAN explained the mayor only voted in the event of a split
vote. SENATOR TAYLOR thought the limiting language at the end of
the new amended version says all exceptions shall be construed
narrowly. He said a narrow construction would not allow the mayor, ,
who actually votes, upon casting a vote, he becomes a member.
SENATOR TAYLOR claimed MR. DRATHMAN'S hypothetical would be a
violation of the act.
MR. DRATHMAN thanked all parties that worked on the bill and gave
his support. SENATOR TAYLOR explained he would have staff get a
legal opinion on MR. DRATHMAN'S questions about the voting
structure of the Homer Assembly.
Number 545
Next, SENATOR TAYLOR went to Valdez to JEANNE DONALD, who agreed
with previous testimony, and favors the bill.
Also from Valdez, was DOUG GRIFFIN, City Manager thanked everyone
who worked on the legislation, including SENATOR TAYLOR and SENATOR
LITTLE. He spoke in support of the aspects of the bill that enable
the administrators, managers, and staff to do a good job for the
people they serve. He praised them for their strong spirit of
public service.
SENATOR TAYLOR went to the Kenai/Soldotna Teleconference site next
to hear from JOAN BENNETT-SCHRADER, testifying on behalf of the
Coalition of Labor Union Women, and she indicated she had the
latest draft only within the last two hours, so she was not
prepared to comment. She did raise the 180 days issue in relation
to drafting a challenge, and said she would be sending a written
opinion after she read the bill. She suggested the legislature
think more in terms of who is Alaska, and secondly, who benefits.
SENATOR TAYLOR next called on GLENN SCHRADER from the same site.
MR. SCHRADER, representing the Kenai Peninsula Central Labor
Council, agreed with his wife that the bill was not sent in a
timely manner. He said their main concern was that the Alaska
Municipal League, a publicly financed meeting, closed their
meetings by charging admission to other than their members. He
felt that because public money was involved, there was a direct
violation of the Open Meetings Act.
SENATOR LITTLE suggested MR. SCHRADER look at page 3, lines 21 and
22, at the exceptions to the Open Meetings Act. She read to him
the section she thought applied to his concern, and directed his
attention to the exception on lines 20 through 22, but only if no
action is taken and no business of the governmental body is
conducted at the meetings. MR. SCHRADER thanked SENATOR LITTLE for r
her remarks, and promised to read over the bill.
TAPE 94-17, SIDE B
Number 001
SENATOR TAYLOR moved on to Fairbanks to hear testimony from VALERIE
THERRIEN, a member of the Fairbanks North Star Borough Assembly.
MS. THERRIEN testified in favor of the bill with only one question
in regards to the latest committee substitute in Section 4 and
asked about some omitted language. SENATOR LITTLE answered it was
a consensus of the groups, and she said it was felt these meetings
are acceptable so long as there is no quorum of members meeting
with the elected officials. She said there was no real purpose to
not have the meetings open to the public.
MS. THERRIEN said she had introduced a resolution which would
support passage of legislation, which would favor the version that
would allow three or more members who could meet and not be in
violation of the Open Meetings Act. She said the assembly wanted
the Open Meetings Act to apply to the legislature, too.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked that she fax (465-3922) their resolutions to
him.
Also in Fairbanks, was DAVID STANNARD, who introduced himself as an
individual citizen, who was not familiar with the proposed
committee substitute. He explained he was a member of a sub-
committee, which is advisory to a committee which is advisory to
the borough assembly, and offered his perspective as a public
volunteer.
MR, STANNARD said he was disturbed about the present circumstances
which prohibits him from talking to anyone else on the working
committee about any business in between the publicly scheduled
meetings. He claimed he had 50 years of committee work and he felt
constrained at not being able to talk to committee members in
between for informational purposes or speculating purposes.
Number 042
MR. STANNARD wondered if the committee substitute was going to
change that condition, and he suggested separating all advisory
bodies from the decision making bodies.
SENATOR LITTLE said his testimony exemplifies why a bill is needed.
She said considerable discussion had gone into what committees
should required to meet the notification parts of the bill, and she
asked members of the committee to assist in the definition.
SENATOR LITTLE thought the definition of a governmental body takes
care of MR. STANNARD'S concerns which reads: "A governmental body
basically includes the members of a sub-committee or other
subordinate unit of a governmental body if the subordinate unit
consists of two or more members."
SENATOR LITTLE said there was no intent to get to the sub-committee
of a sub-committee, etc. to require very low levels of operations
be open, and she asked MS. HAGIVIG to add to the explanation.
MS. HAGIVIG explained sub-committees of sub-committees were
included, but she said they felt the definition of a meeting in
permitting three people to meet together would take care of his
concern. SENATOR TAYLOR clarified that up to three members of a
city council be members of a task force or an advisory group and
not be required to comply with the Open Meetings Act. MS. HAGIVIG
said that was true unless the task force or advisory group were
reporting back to the city council, so they would be subject to the
Open Meetings Act.
MS. HAGIVIG referred back to MR. STANNARD'S example of sub-
committee, which she thought was probably made up strictly of local
citizens, and any three of his sub-committee could get together and
discuss issues from the committee.
SENATOR TAYLOR clarified that every sub-committees would be subject
to the Open Meetings Act, and SENATOR LITTLE read the part which
addresses his question: "A governmental body means an assembly,
council, board, commission, committee with the authority to make
recommendations directly to another governmental body, authorized
to take action on a matter." She continued to explain if the first
sub-committee down cannot take action, then the sub-committee of
that sub-committee is not required to notice their meetings.
Number 095
SENATOR TAYLOR thought what she said made sense but the law didn't,
and he quoted that any sub-committee that is appointed by the mayor
or city council, that doesn't have a single elected person on it,
but is going to make an advisory recommendations on a task force,
is going to have to comply with the Open Meetings Act, but only if
they report or make an advisory recommendation to a council, who
can act upon the subject. Both SENATOR LITTLE and MS. HAGIVIG said
he was correct, and they reviewed the provisions of the Open
Meetings Act in relation to his example.
SENATOR LITTLE noted there were considerable discussions about the
subject, and in considering MR. MCKAY'S suggestion to include "or
public official" on line 8 of page 5, she said they came up with a
scenario of SENATOR LITTLE requesting several constituents to get
together meet on an issue to answer some problem. If the
legislation contained his suggestion of including public officials,
her constituents would have to give public notice of their meeting.
SENATOR LITTLE said she understood the concerns of everyone
involved and would be glad to work with anyone to reach a
resolution of that concern.
MR. STANNARD opined that the effort to legislative in such detail
all the way down into local businesses is a grave mistake, and he
thought the legislature would be better off to establish guidelines
for everyone who was a committee member in any kind of public body.
He thought the committee was making a severe mistake to try to
legislate from the top down in this much detail.
MR STANNARD also thought it was coming out of a no faith approach
and legislators were responding to the kind of cynical pressure
that non-involved citizens are making on legislators. He suggested
the committee think about how far they wanted to go in micro-
managing constitutional rights.
Number 144
SENATOR LITTLE answered with a reference to the language on page 5,
lines 5 through 11, saying she thought it would meet his concern.
She said it basically requires that if the sub-committee is
reporting to a body that cannot make a decision, that sub-committee
meeting does not have to be noticed; however, if that sub-committee
meets and reports to a body that does make a decision on their
recommendations, their meetings would have to be held in the open.
Additionally, on lines 12 through 15, SENATOR LITTLE noted the
definition of a meeting as "more than three members or a majority
of the members ... of a governmental body." She said MR. STANNARD
would be able to discuss with his sub-committee members, at least
three of them, the issues before them without noticing the meeting.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked MR. STANNARD to send him a list of his ideas
and recommendations. They discussed a time line for submitting his
recommendations, and SENATOR TAYLOR complimented him for his
involvement and comments.
SENATOR LITTLE corrected her previous remarks to MR. STANNARD by
explaining he could meet with two other sub-committee members.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked for some legal answers to questions ask by MR.
STANNARD on page 5, beginning with line 6 where a governmental body
could "make recommendations directly to another governmental body
authorized to take action on the matter that is the subject of the
recommendations."
SENATOR TAYLOR questioned whether a task force was a governmental
body, and he gave some examples such as making recommendations to
a chamber of commerce. He questioned the restrictiveness of the
governmental body.
Number 185
SENATOR LITTLE explained the Open Meetings Act would not apply to
a chamber of commerce since it isn't a public entity, but she did
defer to TAMARA COOK, Director of the Division of Legal Services to
answer SENATOR TAYLOR'S questions.
MS. COOK said SENATOR TAYLOR'S questions were well chosen, but she
contended the Open Meetings Act would only apply to a governmental
body of a public entity. She explained they must be in conjunction
before they trigger the statute as a whole, and she told SENATOR
TAYLOR he was correct in assuming the definition in Section 7,
paragraph (1), would pick up the chamber of commerce, but she
referred to the lead sentence of the Open Meetings Act which
indicates it must be "a governmental body of a public entity." She
suggested the committee needs to look to the definition of "public
entity."
SENATOR TAYLOR said her information was helpful to MR. STANNARD,
since he would not be required to comply under this law. She
explained it is correct if it is established by action of a
political body such as the legislature passing a resolution to
establish a task force, but the fact it is comprised of citizens
does not save it from the open meetings statute.
MS. COOK explained at that point there is an interesting question
of whether or not such a task force comes under the Open Meetings
Act. She speculated in addition we have the curiosity in paragraph
(1) which says if such a task force is advisory in nature it is
covered if the advice that it gives is to another governmental
entity that can give advice or make decisions for a public entity.
She described this as a chain of groups that could qualify as a
governmental body of public entity which triggers the open meeting
statute.
SENATOR TAYLOR used an example of the Juneau Assembly as appointing
the Southeast Alaska Conservation Council (SEACC) as a task force,
which would then open up their meetings to public scrutiny under
the Open Meetings Act. MS. COOK explained he was correct only to
the point where they were functioning as a task force, after which
they could resume being a private organization and close their
meetings.
Number 343
SENATOR TAYLOR declared once so appointed, if they ever met and
attempted to come forth and advise the community about their
thoughts, SEACC would have to show they did so in compliance with
the Open Meetings Act. MS. COOK said they would unless they could
demonstrate they were not functioning as a task force at the time
they gave the advice. There was some raillery among the committee
members to open up the editorial board of the Anchorage Daily News
on this, too. MS. COOK also said an entity that is appointed can
also decline the appointment.
MS. COOK said if the may appointed a group of citizens to report
back to the mayor, not to a council, the mayor will not qualify as
a governmental body. That group would be outside of the open
meetings statute.
SENATOR TAYLOR thanked MR. STANNARD and turned to the Mat-Su
teleconference site to hear from ERNIE LINE, who introduced himself
as an old sheep hunter.
MR. LINE explained when he was in doubt about the curl of the horn,
he didn't shoot, and he thought if these people have doubts about
whether they are meeting illegally, then don't meet. He referred
to page 2 to suggest a larger number than a simple majority of
legislators meeting in executive session, particularly when it has
to do with finances.
MR. LINE asked if the state owned any hospitals, and SENATOR TAYLOR
explained hospitals were exempt on page 3, line 10. He confirmed
to MR. LINE hospitals need not be concerned with the Open Meetings
Act.
SENATOR TAYLOR explained the open meetings statute as decided by
the supreme court applies to the legislature, but it can't be
enforced. In the course of their discussion, SENATOR TAYLOR said
he would rather see no government rather than one so hamstrung it
can't operate.
Number 310
SENATOR LITTLE suggested MR. LINE'S concerns were relative to the
Open Meetings Act applying to the legislature, and she explained
the ethics committee has been charged with trying to figure out how
to apply the Open Meetings Act to the legislature. She invited MR.
LINE to send his suggestions and recommendations. MR. LINE asked
if it could be done by way of the public opinion messages, and
SENATOR TAYLOR said his message could be sent to him. He would see
it reached the ethics committee.
SENATOR TAYLOR next called on DONNA FISCHER in Valdez.
MS. FISCHER felt strongly the act must be defined to allow
governments to get on with their business without being afraid of
lawsuits.
SENATOR TAYLOR turned to Haines, and was told there were three
people, the first being BONNIE HEDRICK from the Chilkat Valley
News.
MS. HEDRICK testified in support of the number of members that
qualify for a meeting as described by JOHN MCKAY. She said in
Haines, there were only six members on the city council and borough
assembly, and she didn't think three members should be allowed to
discuss and develop consensus on an issue out side the public eyes.
She said it would detract from a discussion that takes place in
public sessions and removes a large chunk of the important public
process from the public eye. She also expressed concern about
provisions to allow action to be taken during an executive session,
and the difficulty in contesting this irregularity.
Number 352
RAYMOND MENAKER introduced himself as a member of the Haines
Borough Assembly, but testifying as a private person. He said he
didn't have much difficulty in doing deliberations in public among
the rest of the members, and he thought it is nice to be able to
talk to a member, so the number ought to be three members rather
than more than three.
SENATOR LITTLE questioned the quorum established for their public
body, and he replied it was four assembly members. She explained
her reasons for asking about his suggestion of three members, and
said she understood his concerns.
Number 383
Last to speak from Haines, was CLAIR SOLIMAN.
MS. SOLIMAN took issue with SENATOR TAYLOR on her perception of the
number of days involved in getting a notice of legislation to the
teleconference site. SENATOR TAYLOR confirmed she was looking at
the March 16th fax, but he had difficulty in helping her understand
the notification process used by the teleconference network. He
carefully outlined the process and assured her no one was trying to
prevent her from testifying on the bill, and he said the bill would
be scheduled for another meeting.
SENATOR LITTLE commended the explanation made by SENATOR TAYLOR,
and she tried to assure MS. SOLIMAN that every effort has been made
to get information out to people - and will continue to do so
during the deliberations of the issue.
Number 451
MS. SOLIMAN launched into a long dialogue about amendments, the
seven day notice, the definition of a meeting, the end results and
a decision, freedom of speech, and the rights of the people.
Number 497
SENATOR TAYLOR thanked MS. SOLIMAN for her comments and moved on to
Anchorage to hear from LORRA KEENAN.
MS. KEENAN, in discussion of a recall action in Anchorage,
questioned the use of E-mail as notice. When SENATOR TAYLOR asked
for her reference, she quoted it from a memorandum of March 10,
1994, Section 5, : "the notice may be given in any reasonable
manner".
SENATOR LITTLE asked if she was referring to page 3, lines 28
through 30, and MS. KEENAN said it was from a memorandum. She
described a recall against school board members which used E-Mail
to put out recall notices.
MS. KEENAN wanted to send some information on what the court system
is doing on the Open Meetings Act and what the legislature is doing
on the Open Meetings Act.
SENATOR LITTLE explained MR. MCKAY, of the Alaska Press Club, has
proposed some language that was considered about notice, and she
read the lengthy, specific language as proposed by MR. MCKAY. She
said the language had been considered, but no agreement was reached
on including it in the committee substitute.
Number 584
MS. KEENAN complained the legislation upsets her civil rights, and
she referred to a lawsuit in which she is involved. SENATOR LITTLE
clarified she was saying her civil rights were being jeopardized by
the use of E-Mail, and MS. KEENAN said it was because E-Mail has no
geographical boundary. She didn't agree that MR. MCKAY'S language
helped, either.
TAPE 94-18, SIDE A
Number 001
Next to testify was the president of the Alaska Municipal League,
JOHN TORGERSON.
MR. TORGERSON wanted to know if there was anything in this bill
that would stop a municipality from adopting an ordinance that
would be more restrictive than the terms of the bill, and he wanted
to respond to the concerns of the Haines Borough.
SENATOR LITTLE thought any body could make a more restrictive
ordinance, which would apply only to their own meetings. MR.
TORGERSON thought she was correct, but he wanted to enter the
thought into everyone's mind. He thought some of the problems
could be handled by local ordinance.
Number 043
In conclusion, MR. TORGERSON thanked SENATOR LITTLE and MS. HAGIVIG
for their work on the bill, as well as others, including SENATOR
TAYLOR for hearing the bill.
SENATOR TAYLOR returned the testimony to Juneau to hear WENDY
REDMAN, Vice-President for University Relations for the University
of Alaska.
MS. REDMAN noted one point in the bill where JOHN MCKAY brought up
some issues they agreed to disagree upon, and she directed
attention to Section 7 on page 5, line 12 with the removal of
"prearranged" in the definition of a "meeting." She claimed to the
University it was the most significant issue, and she explained it
as a crucial piece in trying to define a meeting.
MS. REDMAN described governing board members as friends, relatives,
and co-workers, and she said these individuals need to be free to
carry on normal personal and professional lives, without the
constant fear of appearing to be in conflict. SENATOR TAYLOR asked
where the word would fit, and she explained it is on line 12,
following "meeting" means a (prearranged) gathering...
MS. REDMAN said she recognized it as a significant difference, and
she described long discussions on this with the working group. She
explained in terms of consensus, the University lost on this issue,
but she felt that since MR. MCKAY brought back an issue, so could
she.
SENATOR TAYLOR called on BILL COFFMAN testifying OFFNET from the
University of Alaska in Fairbanks.
MR. COFFMAN said he was calling to support MS. REDMAN, but he
thought she was doing fine. He suggested some additional language
after the word "prearranged" which would further change the intent
of the paragraph.
SENATOR LITTLE explained that was the language in the previous work
draft, and she further explained considerable discussion was under-
taken regarding this definition. She said the word "prearranged"
and "for the purpose of considering," were seen as shields under
which a group could meet and discuss business in private. SENATOR
LITTLE maintained that in order to have a clear definition, the new
language is better, and she gave some examples of how the changes
could allow public matters to be discussed in private situations.
Number 145
SENATOR TAYLOR thanked SENATOR LITTLE for her explanation, but he
gave examples of how people in social gatherings deliberately
approach other people about business or political concerns. He
described how difficult it would be to keep people from grilling
other people in a social gathering. In his position he thought it
was a valuable part of being accessible to the public.
MR. MCKAY interjected his views given by SENATOR TAYLOR, who gave
him a dose of frustrations at the attempts to distance public
officials from any communication within their community relative to
information they need to make decisions.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved on to JEFF BUSH, testifying on behalf of the
Alaska Civil Liberties Union.
Number 203
MR. BUSH spoke to the word "three" before members, on line 13 of
page 5, to say the Alaska Civil Liberties Union would support MR.
MCKAY and the press in having the number reduced more than two, or
three or more, as opposed to three. Otherwise, the ACLU supports
the legislation and see it pass. SENATOR TAYLOR told MR. BUSH he
appreciated the candor of his comments throughout the process.
SENATOR TAYLOR next went to the Kenai/Soldotna teleconference site
to hear from PEGGY MULLEN.
MS. MULLEN expressed her belief the latest committee substitute is
better than the bill of last year, but she was still concerned at
the avoidance of public notice by public officials. She thought
there should be ways to open up the process, and she repeated
criticism about the governmental process. She thought open meeting
were part of this criticism and outreach should be a particular
effort on the part of elected officials.
MS. MULLEN expressed some concerns at the language on line 21 of
page 3, and asked why public officials are so possessive of these
sort of meetings. She described a visit by the attorney general to
a meeting in Soldotna, at which there was hardly any seating for
the public. She quote JANET RENO on an expansion of the Freedom of
Information Act in the Justice Department, and she urged the
legislators to err on the side of openness in their meetings.
Number 255
MS. MULLEN suggested elected officials go out of their way to erase
the perception people have that the officials are sneaking around
doing things behind their back.
SENATOR TAYLOR protested MS. MULLEN'S perception that elected
official deny access. He described being at the Soldotna meeting
and didn't remember anyone being denied access to the meeting. He
said he would have been offended if anyone was denied access to
such a meeting. SENATOR TAYLOR claimed the doors of government are
open much wider today than they have ever been before, and he
commented on the number of reports he hears every morning for all
kinds of meetings.
SENATOR TAYLOR described the good old days as not being so open,
and he thought the legislation was being inclusive rather than
exclusive. He urged MS. MULLEN to encourage her elected officials
to go to all of the available meetings and not be fearful they
might be illegal meetings.
Number 308
SENATOR LITTLE thought PEGGY MULLEN'S comments were well taken.
She hoped the Alaska Municipal League would reconsider their policy
regarding their annual meetings, and at the situation described by
MS. MULLEN, people did feel excluded. They could only attend if
they were willing to pay the entire fee, and SENATOR LITTLE told
MS. MULLEN she hoped the committee was getting to where she would
like the committee to be on the legislation.
SENATOR TAYLOR next called on CARL ROSE testifying in Juneau.
MR. ROSE identified himself as the Executive Director of the Alaska
Association of School Boards.
MR. ROSE put the association on record as supporting HB 254, and
said they were grateful for the definition of terms and the
clarification of the process. He spoke to the subject of executive
sessions from the stand point of a school district as being one of
form as well as legal exposure.
MR. ROSE listed the issue of negotiations and legal affairs as
being executive functions. With the ability to extract information
from a group of people, he thought it important to allow for the
opportunity to answer questions, to be informed, and to allow for
focused directions. He thought all of this should be done in
executive session free of any political influence or legal
liability to all persons present. He spoke in appreciation of the
issues presented by MS. REDMAN on prearranged meetings, and he
explained his reasons because of close relationships among members
of a school board.
The Anchorage teleconference site noted there were two people still
to testify, KRISTE LOWER and CHARLES MCKEE.
Number 351
SENATOR TAYLOR called on MS. LOWER, who began with some background
information on a recall hearing in Anchorage with accusations
against four assembly members and two school board members, with
what thought to be an attempt to thwart the public such as alerting
the public only on E-Mail less than 24 hours prior to the meeting
in a very small office. She described this process leading up to
14 parents being sued by the Municipality for bringing culpable
information forward about the posTing of the meeting.
MS. LOWER referred to information on posting in Section 5, page 3,
lines 24 through 30 indicating the public notice of a meeting maybe
given in any reasonable manner. She thought it should be more
restrictive in defining the type of manner, and she outlined how
she thought the posting should have been done.
SENATOR TAYLOR thanked MS. LOWER for her testimony and explained
the committee was working on possible language to take care of the
problem. He indicated agreement with SENATOR LITTLE that E-Mail
would not be adequate notification process.
CHARLES MCKEE, a candidate for mayor of Anchorage, protested some
language that SENATOR LITTLE said had been removed.
SENATOR TAYLOR discussed with the committee what he considered
interesting points from the testimony and he proposed to hold the
bill in committee. He thanked SENATOR LITTLE and praised the
committee that worked with her on the legislation.
There being no further business to come before the committee, the
meeting was adjourned at 3:40 p.m. by SENATOR TAYLOR.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|