Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/28/1994 01:37 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 28, 1994
1:37 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Robin Taylor, Chairman
Senator Rick Halford, Vice-Chairman
Senator George Jacko
Senator Dave Donley
Senator Suzanne Little
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 195(FIN)
"An Act authorizing youth courts to provide for peer adjudication
of minors who have allegedly committed violations of state or
municipal laws, and renaming the community legal assistance grant
fund and amending the purposes for which grants may be made from
that fund in order to provide financial assistance for organization
and initial operation of youth courts."
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 8
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to capital projects and loan appropriations, and to the
expenditure limit.
SENATE BILL NO. 279
"An Act relating to operating or driving a motor vehicle,
commercial motor vehicle, aircraft, or watercraft."
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 254(JUD) am(ct rule fld)
"An Act relating to open meetings of governmental bodies."
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
HB 195 - See Health, Education & Social Services minutes dated
2/23/94.
SJR 8 - See State Affairs minutes dated 1/27/93. See
Judiciary minutes dated 2/15/93, 2/19/93, 2/22/93.
SB 279 - See State Affairs minutes dated 3/9/94 & 3/11/94.
HB 254 - See Judiciary minutes dated 3/9/94, 3/16/94, 3/21/94.
WITNESS REGISTER
Paula Terrel, Staff to Representative Joe Sitton
State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered information on HB 195
John Ely, President
Anchorage Youth Court
Anchorage, AK
Phone No. (907) 278-8533
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 195
Senator Randy Phillips
State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime Sponsor of SJR 8
C.E. Swackhammer, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Public Safety
P.O. Box 111200
Juneau, AK 99811-1200
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered information in support of SB 279
Steve Barnes
P.O. Box 332
Cordova, AK 99574
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 279
Patsy Fisher
P.O. Box 321
Cordova, AK 99574
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 279
Juanita Hensley, Chief of Drivers Services
Division of Motor Vehicles
Department of Public Safety
P.O. Box 20020
Juneau, AK 99802-0020
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered information on SB 279
Tam Cook, Director
Legal Services Division
Legislative Affairs Agency
130 Seward St., Suite 409
Juneau, AK 99801-2105
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered information on HB 254
John McKay
Anchorage, AK
Phone No. (907) 276 5231
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 254
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 94-26, SIDE A
Number 001
JUD - 3/28/94
CHAIRMAN ROBIN TAYLOR called the Judiciary Committee meeting to
order at 1:37 p.m. He brought CSHB 195(FIN) (AUTHORIZING YOUTH
COURTS) before the committee as the first order of business.
PAULA TERREL, staff to Representative Joe Sitton who is prime
sponsor of HB 195, explained the legislation is based on a Youth
Court Program, the only one in Alaska. It is a diversion program
that has had a good success rate in Anchorage. Minors who have
committed an offense, or allegedly committed a offense, can decide
to go into this diversion program if the juvenile intake of the
Department of Health & Social Services and their parents agree.
HB 195 will set up in statute the authority for youth court
programs to take place. It will also set up a grant program under
DCRA which will allow communities, whether urban or rural, to apply
for a $5,000 one time only grant that would have to be matched by
each nonprofit or community as seed money to start up the program.
She noted the bill is set up so that it would allow for maximum
flexibility depending on how the communities want to handle it.
Ms. Terrel pointed out that recidivism rate is very low in the
Anchorage program.
Number 083
SENATOR HALFORD said the bill provides that the record be sealed,
but he wondered if the bill provides access to the record of
disposition of a case to the victim of the offense, essentially for
a civil case, because the victim may want to sue the offender and
the parents for damages. He added that he would be violently
opposed to anything that weakens that right more than it already
is.
JOHN ELY, an Anchorage lawyer and President of Anchorage Youth
Court testifying from Anchorage, said one the main things the
Anchorage Youth Court tries to teach the defendant is the cost of
their crime. Restitution is one of the main emphases that they
give out, along with community service. Any property damage that's
done is almost always compensated for through restitution.
However, there is difficulty in allowing civil proceedings to flow
from juvenile proceedings because of a strict confidentiality
involved in all juvenile proceedings. In youth court, there is one
added difficulty to allowing the information to go, and that is
that no actual conviction will show on the juvenile's record after
completing the youth court diversion program sentencing if they are
found guilty in youth court.
Number 612
SENATOR HALFORD said he has no interest in a civil follow-up if, in
fact, there is restitution, but if the restitution isn't paid, then
we've just established a mechanism to protect the juvenile from
having to pay the bill for what he did. MR. ELY answered that as
it stands now, it would still be very difficult to use the juvenile
criminal record in a civil proceeding. SENATOR HALFORD noted that
legislation has passed the Senate that will make changes to
juvenile waivers and juvenile information. SENATOR TAYLOR said
that he would have staff make sure that the provisions incorporated
within the current SB 54 are in balance with the legislation before
the committee. SENATOR HALFORD said that with that exception, he
has no problem with the legislation.
Number 186
SENATOR DONLEY asked who establishes guidelines that the
prosecutors follow for youth court. MR. ELY replied that they
prosecute under both state and municipal laws, depending on the
offense, the arresting officer's citing of the offense, etc. The
guidelines for prosecution are established by the youth court bars
themselves and they are not extremely formal. The prosecutors are
students themselves, and there are legal advisors to the youth
court.
SENATOR DONLEY related that concern had been expressed to him by
several police officers that after arrests had been made, the
officers weren't even requested to come in and testify, and that
nothing was done to the offenders. MR. ELY said he was surprised,
and he would like to talk to Senator Donley further about the
instances because there may be some misunderstandings. He added
that they work as closely with law enforcement as they can.
Number 260
SENATOR DONLEY also spoke to the public perception that a lot of
these juveniles are repeat offenders, that they commit these crimes
over and over again before they are formally adjudicated as
delinquents, and even that system is not very effective as far as
the punishment being given. MR. ELY clarified that the youth court
only deals with first time offenders.
Number 325
There being no further testimony on HB 195, SENATOR TAYLOR stated
the bill would be held in committee for further consideration.
Number 340
JUD - 3/28/94
SENATOR TAYLOR brought SJR 8 (CAPITAL PROJECTS/EXPENDITURE LIMIT)
before the committee as the next order of business.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS explained the legislation is basically a
spending limit plan. It sets the limit at $2.3 billion from FY 95
through the year 2000. The only exceptions to the spending limit
would be the appropriations to the permanent fund, permanent fund
dividends, budget reserves, revenues from taxes approved by voters,
bond proceeds, principal and interest on bonds issued by the state,
money received in trust for a specific purpose, endowment earnings,
and reserves from public corporations.
The limit cannot be exceeded unless there is two-thirds affirmative
vote of both the House and the Senate. If inflation exceeds 6
percent, the Legislature may appropriate an amount to offset the
effect of inflation that exceeds 6 percent. Any revenues in excess
of the expenditure limit will be deposited in the constitutional
budget reserve account.
It also requires that at least 10 percent of all money appropriated
for each fiscal year be appropriated for capital projects and
loans.
Number 360
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if this would have an effect on the last three
years' budget cycles. SENATOR PHILLIPS answered it would have an
effect on both last year and this year.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if it was realistic to try to obtain a
spending limitation at this level. SENATOR PHILLIPS acknowledged
it was, because in the future, the state will be at that point
whether this is in place or not. SENATOR TAYLOR responded that
wasn't necessarily true, because the Legislature could start
spending money out of different accounts that are still readily
available for appropriation.
Number 390
SENATOR LITTLE, referring to the inflation factor, asked if this
legislation takes into account that fact that everything will cost
more. SENATOR PHILLIPS answered that right now inflation is about
at 3 percent and this allows for an upper cap of 6 percent. If it
goes over that, the Legislature may appropriate an amount to offset
the effect of inflation that exceeds 6 percent. SENATOR TAYLOR
pointed out that if the inflation rate were at 5 percent, his
formula would not allow for any adjustment to take that 5 percent
into consideration. SENATOR LITTLE said she had some real concerns
with school districts and everybody else in the state having to eat
the cost of inflation without severely damaging programs. SENATOR
PHILLIPS stated he would not have a problem with amending that
language.
Number 420
SENATOR DONLEY made a motion that on page 1, line 7, to change the
money appropriated for capital projects and loans from 10 percent
to 5 percent. SENATOR JACKO objected, stating that capital
projects are more important in some parts of the state than others,
and making it less is not reflective of that. The roll was taken
with the following result: Senator Donley voted "Yea" and Senators
Taylor, Halford, Jacko and Little voted "Nay." The Chairman stated
the motion failed.
Number 480
After further discussion on the inflation factor, SENATOR TAYLOR
moved that page 2, lines 14 and 15, replace "6" with "3." Hearing
no objection, the amendment was adopted.
SENATOR DONLEY asked where the state's share of local school
construction projects fits in. SENATOR PHILLIPS answered that it
isn't in here, it is part of the operating budget, and he wouldn't
be opposed to adding that to the 10 percent capital projects
budget.
Number 520
SENATOR JACKO asked what percentage was appropriated last year for
capital projects. SENATOR PHILLIPS estimated it was close to 25
percent.
SENATOR JACKO moved that on page 1, line 7, change "10 percent" to
"25 percent." SENATOR LITTLE objected. The roll was taken with
the following result: Senator Jacko voted "Yea" and Senators
Taylor, Halford, Donley and Little voted "Nay." The amendment
failed.
Number 545
SENATOR TAYLOR moved that on page 1, line 12, and on page 2, line
9, change "1995" to "1996" and change "2000" to "2001" and on page
2, line 25, change "2000" to "2001." Hearing no objection, the
amendment was adopted.
SENATOR DONLEY asked what the interplay was between this amendment
and the existing Article IX, Section 16, and why not just eliminate
it. SENATOR PHILLIPS suggested a repealer could be put in saying
that if this is approved that section could be repealed. SENATOR
DONLEY commented he thought it is more preferable to put this on
the books and just get rid of Section 16, which is the old spending
limitation.
TAPE 94-26, SIDE B
Number 015
SENATOR DONLEY moved a conceptual amendment that the resolution
would repeal Article IX, Section 16 of the Constitution of the
State of Alaska. SENATOR HALFORD amended the conceptual amendment
that the resolution should be redrafted so that it becomes a
replacement for the existing Article 18, Section 16. Hearing no
objection, the conceptual amendment was adopted.
Number 040
SENATOR TAYLOR stated that after a committee substitute
incorporating the amendments was drafted, SJR 8 would be back
before the committee for final action.
Number 050
JUD - 3/28/94
SENATOR TAYLOR brought SB 279 (DWI LAWS) before the committee and
noted that it was the same as HB 445 which was being worked in the e
House. It was further noted there was a draft CSSB 279(JUD) for
the committee's consideration.
C.W. SWACKHAMMER, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Public Safety,
explained the Governor introduced the two pieces of legislation
based upon Alaska being number three in the nation in alcohol and
drug-related traffic fatalities. In 1992, there were 382 major
injury accidents involving 550 drivers and 89 fatality accidents
involving 125 drivers.
The legislation changes the implied consent law to make it
applicable to all drivers that are involved in fatal or serious
injury accidents. The ability to take blood and urine from the
drivers will provide a much needed tool in an attempt to remove
drunk drivers from the road. The implied consent is the same as
the implied consent for the toxcimeter.
Number 080
SENATOR DONLEY pointed out that this doesn't require any reasonable
suspicion by the arresting officer that the driver was drinking or
was under the influence of alcohol or a drug. MR. SWACKHAMMER
agreed, and said the thing that is critical in major injury and
fatality accidents is time in terms of alcohol levels or blood
levels. He spoke to the positive aspect to the innocent person by
taking someone's blood or urine to be able to prove the fact that
the individual was not intoxicated or on drugs. He added it will
give everyone involved in these injury and fatal accidents some
facts to go on. Currently, there is not a process without a search
warrant to screen for drugs.
SENATOR DONLEY voiced his concern with requiring the ordinary
person who was involved in an accident, but who had not caused the
accident, into giving blood and urine samples. He wondered want
the Supreme Court would say about such a requirement, and he
requested that a legal opinion be requested on the question.
Number 190
SENATOR TAYLOR stated the committee would take testimony over the
Legislative Teleconference Network.
STEVE BARNES, testifying from Cordova, related that his wife and
child were killed earlier in the month in Anchorage, while
traveling to a judo tournament, by a drunk driver who had walked
out of a half-way house. He said warrants issued for individuals
walking out of half-way houses are not pursued, and he suggested
taking care of the problem before it happens by instituting tougher
penalties for repeat offenders of DWI. He strongly urged passage
of a provision such as contained in HB 542 which would make the
fifth DWI offense a class C felony.
SENATOR TAYLOR agreed that SB 279 could be amended to include the
felony provision.
Number 245
SENATOR HALFORD thanked Mr. Barnes for his testimony and his
continued interest in benefits to others, and he said he wished it
weren't in this situation. SENATOR TAYLOR also expressed the
committee's condolences to Mr. Barnes and its appreciation for his
testimony.
Number 253
PATSY FISHER, a member of the Cordova City Council testifying from
Cordova, echoed Mr. Barnes' comments, and said the revocation of
licenses is not keeping the drunk drivers off of the road. She
urged that the committee take steps to make a third offense a
felony, and to impose stiffer penalties so that more lives are not
lost because of drunk drivers.
Number 265
SENATOR TAYLOR noted that Section 8 on page 7 of the draft
committee substitute incorporates the felony for the third
offender. It provides that a person would be guilty of a class C
felony if convicted of driving while intoxicated and has two
previous convictions or more on their record. It also provides for
a minimum sentence of imprisonment of 360 days and a fine of not
less than $1,000.
Number 275
SENATOR HALFORD moved that CSSB 279(JUD) be adopted as a working
document. Hearing no objection, the Chairman stated the committee
substitute was adopted and was before the committee.
SENATOR HALFORD moved that on page 7, line 17, change "$1,000" to
"$5,000." Hearing no objection, the amendment was adopted.
Number 307
SENATOR DONLEY asked if the new subsection provides for the
furloughing of prisoners. SENATOR TAYLOR answered that it does
not.
SENATOR HALFORD commented that he likes the $5,000 fine, but he has
concerns with the cuts that are being made in the Department of
Corrections' budget, and he wondered how else the penalties could
be increased in a way that would not greatly increase the
Corrections' budget. He also suggested that the person who
provides a vehicle to a person who has previous DWIs should be
penalized as well.
Number 330
SENATOR DONLEY expressed his frustration that the House has passed
a bill that does away with the requirement that individuals who got
DWIs insure all of their vehicles.
Number 372
SENATOR LITTLE inquired what the current prison time requirement is
for DWIs. JUANITA HENSLEY, Division of Motor Vehicles, Department
of Public Safety, said the first offense is a minimum of 72 hours,
the second offense is a mandatory 20 consecutive days, the third
offense is a minimum of 60 consecutive days, the fourth offense is
a minimum of 120 days, the fifth offense is 240 days, and the sixth
and subsequent offense is 360 days.
SENATOR LITTLE voiced her concern that with the changes made in the
committee substitute there will be a dramatic change in the fiscal
note by the Department of Corrections. She has a problem with
cutting drug and alcohol abuse programs, not adequately funding the
prison system, and then passing bills like this. SENATOR TAYLOR
pointed out that current law provides that the prisoners pay for
the time served if they have the ability to do so. MS. HENSLEY
agreed, stating that they pay $60 a day or up to $1,000.
Number 420
SENATOR HALFORD questioned if there was a significant difference in
a felony with a 360-day sentence versus a 366-day sentence, because
he thinks there are provisions in federal law and state law that
deal with a felony for which the term of imprisonment exceeds one
year. SENATOR TAYLOR agreed that the normal definition of a
"felony" is a sentence carrying more than one year. SENATOR
HALFORD suggested making it one year instead of 360 days.
Number 475
SENATOR DONLEY thought the confiscation of vehicles that are used
in the commission of the crime would be the single most effective
thing that could be done, even more than locking the offender up.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked Margo Knuth of the Department of Law to work
with the drafter of the legislation to see if there was a possible
way to provide for a forfeiture the court can order without having
to go through a rather involved process. MARGO KNUTH agreed to do
so, but thinks that there may be constitutional problems.
SENATOR HALFORD agreed something needs to be done that hits the
vehicle and scares the financial institutions away from insuring
and financing cars for DWIs, as well people from loaning their cars
to somebody that they know has a DWI. He said economic enforcement
has more impact that social enforcement.
Number 530
There was some discussion on the delay in the system of offenders
going to court and serving their time, etc., and the majority of
the people who are driving without a license are people who lost
their licenses because of DWIs. MR. SWACKHAMMER agreed, and he
pointed out that there are so many driving with license suspended
offenses that the system just won't accommodate it. When looking
at the problem from a statewide perspective and when looking at the
numbers, whether it is the district attorney's office, the courts,
or the Department of Corrections, the system just can't handle the
load. In terms of priorities of types of criminal cases that are
going through, these offenses have taken a back seat. MS. HENSLEY
added that there is in excess of 5,500 DWIs a year in Alaska.
TAPE 94-27, SIDE A
Number 010
MR. SWACKHAMMER discussed the mandatory drug and alcohol testing on
drivers causing accidents and the problems the arresting officer
has in detecting the use of drugs at the scene of the accident.
SENATOR DONLEY thought there should be a legal standard somewhere
between "probable cause" and "no cause" that is the ability of the
arresting officer to articulate a reasonable suspicion.
Number 050
SENATOR TAYLOR stated SB 279 would be held over until the next
meeting to look at a possible forfeiture provision.
Number 095
JUD - 3/28/94
SENATOR TAYLOR brought CSHB 254(JUD) am(ct rule fld) (OPEN MEETING G
ACT) before the committee as the final order of business.
SENATOR LITTLE said at the last meeting on the bill, some of the
members had concern with community councils. As a result, a new
committee substitute was drafted and on page 5, lines 18 through
23, an exception for community councils has been included.
Number 125
SENATOR TAYLOR said his only concern is that at what point in time
is a determination made that the group has gathered for the purpose
of adopting a recommendation. His concern is the notification
requirements and when does this trigger. SENATOR LITTLE responded
that all community councils are currently advertising there
meetings. She said this language was added so that members of the
community council could get together for a block party without
violating the Open Meetings Act, and all of the other times when
they would be making decisions for the community council, they
would need to meet under the Open Meetings Act. She added that
these councils only make recommendations, and when dealing with a
body that only recommends, there is little impact to the main body
who accepts that recommendation. She didn't see that any great
harm could be developed from a suit against an advisory group.
SENATOR TAYLOR responded that it would be against the assembly for
having taking the recommendation and acting upon it.
Number 190
TAM COOK, Director, Division of Legal Services, Legislative Affairs
Agency, observed that she was sure that the action of an assembly
would be voided, assuming that the assembly action was properly
noticed, etc. She thought it would be quite a stretch for the
court to be willing to go that far. She also observed that when
dealing with a large group of people who are participating in a
council meeting, it will incumbent upon whoever is chairing that
meeting to remind the member with the idea about a recommendation
that they want to bring forward of the requirement of the Open
Meetings Act, and that if the council has not complied with it,
they'll need to schedule another meeting before they take action on
that recommendation.
Ms. Cook said that, essentially, this approach gives some leeway to
public councils in that there is a number of members test or any
other definition of what constitutes a gathering. The test is are
they attempting to take action.
Number 231
SENATOR DONLEY said there was discussion at the last meeting on
advisory groups and breaking out the requirements for them, but not
necessarily holding them to the same standards of not talking to
each other, and he asked it that was covered in the committee
substitute. SENATOR LITTLE responded that they would be covered
under the new definition of a meeting. MS. COOK agreed that the
advisory groups would be covered, and they would be held to same
level of the test of what is a meeting, except for the narrow
exception in the committee substitute that applies to community
council situations. The test for a community council is that it is
must be a group with an indefinite membership. She suggested if
the committee so desired, it could take the same approach with all
advisory groups, not just community councils.
Number 283
SENATOR TAYLOR spoke to his concerns on applying the Open Meetings
Act to the subcommittee level when all that is really wanted is
that public meetings, where there is going to be some action taken,
be held in public. He cautioned that with the way the legislation
was going, it may be doing more damage than good.
SENATOR LITTLE commented that she believes that the existing law
has already broken down, and she strongly feels that there needs to
be something put in place to take its place.
Number 350
SENATOR HALFORD asked how the members would feel about an amendment
to exempt the Open Meetings Act from the general severability of
Alaska Statutes. He said that means it either works or it doesn't,
and it can't be picked apart by court action. If a court is going
to decide that the Open Meetings Act is wrong in any way, it is all
or nothing. He is concerned that the Legislature is tinkering in
response to the court's tinkering, yet the Legislature has no idea
of what the court's interpretation of the final product is going to
be. SENATOR TAYLOR stated he didn't think he would have a great
deal of objection to that approach, but he was not certain it could
done. SENATOR DONLEY thought the community council was alright,
but he does not want to go that far with advisory committees. His
problem is with getting to the point where non officials are not
allowed to talk about something among themselves in their
community.
Number 400
SENATOR HALFORD said he thought the two categories are: what kind
of notice do you provide; and what kind of restrictions on
communication do you have. The notice provisions on meetings
should apply to virtually everybody and any thing that has got to
do with government. The restrictions on communication should not
apply to people that don't stand for election, don't get any
compensation, and don't have significant power.
In response to Senator Halford, TAM COOK suggested keeping the two
tiers for the definition of "meeting" as contained in the committee
substitute, but apply the first tier only to groups that are not
advisory in nature; keep the second test for citizen groups whereby
they have to notice their meeting only if they take action; and set
up a third tier for advisory groups that is somewhat in the middle
that requires them to notice a meeting at any time that they take
action, but also pick up the notion of a prearranged meeting as
being separate from a casual encounter, so that the notice
requirement for all their meetings applies to prearranged meetings
and gatherings at which action is taken. She said if the committee
wants to make these kind of fine distinctions, she was sure she
could draft it.
Number 465
After further discussion, SENATOR LITTLE moved a conceptual
amendment to create a three-tierd system as proposed by Tam Cook.
SENATOR TAYLOR objected for discussion purposes, stating he would
rather have less tiers than more tiers. He suggested taking out
the recommendation language (beginning on line 9, after the second
"or") altogether. SENATOR HALFORD agreed that it was simpler to
take out the advisory questions, and if that can't be done, then go
to a tier concept.
TAME COOK said if the desire is to remove from application of the
Open Meetings Act all advisory groups, including subcommittees, she
thought it would be necessary in the definition to affirmatively
say so. But she cautioned that by leaving the language "with
authority to establish policies or make decisions" and being silent
about how that is to be applied to an advisory group, then the
court will decide that as to an advisory group, their decision is
the advice they are going to make and they may inadvertently scoop
these groups back into the statute. The result is that it confines
the application of the open meetings statute only to groups that
have the ability to make some sort of binding decision in
government. It removes from application of the open meetings
statute a great many groups that are undoubtedly now included, she
stated.
Number 540
SENATOR TAYLOR called for a roll call vote on Senator Little's
conceptual amendment. Senators Little and Donley voted "Yea" and
Senators Taylor, Halford and Jacko voted "Nay." The conceptual
amendment failed.
Number 550
SENATOR TAYLOR moved that on page 5, beginning on line 9, after the
word "entity" delete the language "or to make recommendations
directly to a mayor or manager of a municipality, a superintendent
of a school district, or another governmental body authorized to
take action on the matter that is the subject of the
recommendations;". On line 12 following "governmental body"
rewrite the rest of the sentence so that it specifically deletes
subcommittees or those who would make recommendations. He further
moved to delete the language on page 5, beginning on line 18 after
the word "collectively" down through line 23 ending with the word
"entity." SENATOR LITTLE objected. The roll was taken with the
following result: Senators Taylor, Halford, Jacko voted "Yea" and
Senators Donley and Little voted "Nay." The Chairman stated the
amendment was adopted.
Number 575
SENATOR TAYLOR noted a former legislator had forwarded
recommendations to the committee concerning the application of the
law to the Legislature. In his recommendations he suggests that
the word "formal" before the word "gathering" under the definition
of "meeting," the concept being that there needs to be some
triggering mechanism where it moves from the discussion phase to
the decisional phase. However, Senator Taylor thought some other
word was needed.
TAPE 94-26, SIDE A
Number 012
SENATOR LITTLE stated she would prefer that language such as a
formal gathering not be added, because she doesn't think it
accomplishes anything. She said she didn't understand the concern
that someone is trying to address by adding it.
Number 030
SENATOR DONLEY asked how this would work with caucuses. SENATOR
LITTLE responded that the Ethics Committee has been charged with
applying the Open Meetings Act to the Legislature, so it would be
up to that committee as to how this law is applied to the
legislative branch. SENATOR TAYLOR said by turning this whole
process lose with a group of people that have never been the
majority with a group of people who have never served in the
Legislature or understand how it works, he didn't think it would
end up with anything that would be workable. Further, he thinks
most of the assemblies and councils are having a very difficult
time trying to comply right now with the Act, and providing that
three members can at least talk with one another gives them a
little bit of relief. But when dealing with 60 members of the
Legislature, these numbers don't work anymore. SENATOR LITTLE
responded that is why it makes sense to work hard with the Ethics
Committee in coming up with something that will serve everyone
well.
Number 060
SENATOR TAYLOR stated he didn't feel it was appropriate to move the
bill from committee until such time as the committee has given some
rather strong direction to the Ethics Committee on how it believes
it should apply.
Number 070
JOHN MCKAY, testifying from Anchorage, reminded the committee that
the statute that gives the Ethics Committee the opportunity to set
some standards for the Legislature specifically creates a couple of
things that look at the special nature of the Legislature. It
provides that whatever guidelines that they come up with have to
allow closed caucuses and private informal meetings or
conversations between legislators when a political strategy is
discussed.
Mr. McKay said that all of the people who have been involved in
this process, from the municipal league people, the school board
people, the press organizations, to the League of Voters have all
said that the legislation in front of the committee works to
balance the interests of the municipal officials, public officials
and the public.
Number 120
SENATOR TAYLOR thanked Mr. McKay for his comments. He stated the
bill was not ready to be moved out of committee and he hoped it
would be in the near future.
There being no further business to come before the committee, the
meeting was adjourned at 4:10 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|