Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/23/1994 09:08 AM Senate STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE STATE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
March 23, 1994
9:08 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Loren Leman, Chair
Senator Jim Duncan
Senator Johnny Ellis
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Mike Miller, Vice Chair
Senator Robin Taylor
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 255(HES)
"An Act establishing a comprehensive policy relating to human
resource development in the state."
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 49(FIN) am
"An Act relating to absentee voting, to electronic transmission of
absentee ballot applications, to delivery of ballots to absentee
ballot applicants by electronic transmission, and enacting a
definition of the term `state election' for purposes of absentee
voting; and providing for an effective date."
SENATE BILL NO. 302
"An Act relating to the establishment, modification, and
enforcement of support orders and the determination of parentage in
situations involving more than one state; amending Alaska Rule of
Administration 9; amending Alaska Rule of Civil Procedure 82; and
providing for an effective date."
HOUSE BILL NO. 421
"An Act authorizing grants for temporary housing assistance during
emergencies and disasters."
CS FOR HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 43(FIN)
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to the rights of crime victims.
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
SB 255 - See Community & Regional Affairs minutes dated
1/25/94, 2/1/94, 2/3/94, 2/8/94 & 3/16/94.
HB 49 - No previous senate committee action.
SB 302 - See State Affairs minutes dated 3/21/94 and 3/23/94.
HB 421 - No previous senate committee action.
HJR 43 - See Judiciary minutes dated 11/16/93 and State Affairs
minutes dated 3/9/94 and 3/21/94.
WITNESS REGISTER
Senator Randy Phillips, Chairperson
Senate Community & Regional Affairs Committee
State Capitol, Juneau, AK 99801-1182¶465-4949
POSITION STATEMENT: prime sponsor of SB 255
Debra Call, Chairperson
Alaska Job Training Council
12342 W. Prince of Peace, Eagle River, AK 99577¶696-5786
POSITION STATEMENT: in favor of SB 255
Representative Terry Martin
State Capitol, Juneau, AK 99801-1182¶465-3783
POSITION STATEMENT: prime sponsor of HB 49
Tom Anderson, Aide
Representative Martin
State Capitol, Juneau, AK 99801-1182¶465-3783
POSITION STATEMENT: prime sponsor of HB 49
Joe Swanson, Director
Division of Elections
P.O. Box 110017, Juneau, AK 99811-0017¶465-4611
POSITION STATEMENT: in favor of HB 49
Kenneth Kirk
900 W. 5th, Suite 730, Anchorage, AK 99501¶279-1659
POSITION STATEMENT: in favor of SB 302
Laraine L. Derr, Deputy Commissioner
Treasury
Department of Revenue
P.O. Box 110400, Juneau, AK 99811-0400¶465-4880
POSITION STATEMENT: in favor of SB 302
Donna Page, Senior Hearing Officer
Department of Revenue
P.O. Box 110400, Juneau, AK 99811-0400¶465-2330
POSITION STATEMENT: in favor of SB 302
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 94-19, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN LEMAN calls the Senate State Affairs Committee to order at
9:08 a.m. The chairman notes that the committee does not yet have
a quorum, but will take testimony.
Number 011
CHAIRMAN LEMAN brings up SB 255 (STATE POLICY ON HUMAN RESOURCE
DEVELOPMT) as the first order of business before the Senate State
Affairs Committee. The chairman calls the prime sponsor of SB 255
as the first witness.
Number 022
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS, prime sponsor of SB 255, says the bill will
establish a state policy on human resource development for state
government agencies, and require public officials responsible for
education and training programs to coordinate their programs. He
is introducing this legislation because he is one of the members of
the Alaska Job Training Council. Ms. Call can better explain what
SB 255 attempts to do. There are several zero fiscal notes.
Number 040
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS says on page 3, lines 5-7 an amendment was
added that would require a legislative audit every four years.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks if there are any questions for Senator
Phillips. Hearing none, the chairman asks Ms. Call if she would
like to testify.
Number 050
DEBRA CALL, Chairperson, Alaska Job Training Council says she does
not have any testimony to add, but is available to answer
questions. Ms. Call states the council oversees the Alaska Job
Training Partnership Act (AJTPA), and also advises the governor on
human resource policy in the state. Ms. Call says she currently
works as the employment and training program director for Peak
Alaska Ventures, which is wholly owned in the Cook Inlet Region.
Peak Alaska Ventures is also 50% of the Peak Oil Field Service
Company. Peak currently employs over 500 people.
MS. CALL says she supports SB 255 because she thinks the State of
Alaska needs to have a human resource development policy. She
currently works with many of the entities addressed by the bill.
She has found that each entity has its' own rules and guidelines
governing human resource development, and so sees a need for
coordination.
Number 096
CHAIRMAN LEMAN thanks Ms. Call for her testimony. The chairman
asks about the phrase used several times throughout SB 255,
"...productive work force, and have an opportunity to earn a living
wage." He asks also about the term "employment opportunities".
His question is, should we not also encourage people to enter into
their own business opportunity, and not just refer to people
becoming employees, but also becoming small business owners.
Number 120
MS. CALL responds that the Alaska Job Training Council focuses
about 90% of it's energy on job training to work with established
industries. She believes there is funding available through the
Department of Community & Regional Affairs and other entities to
give people the opportunity to start their own businesses. She is
aware that it was not included in SB 255 because they wanted to
focus on training to help those people who really did not have the
entrepreneurial spirit.
Number 142
CHAIRMAN LEMAN says he understands why the bill is written the way
it is, but as a follow up question, asks Ms. Call if she thinks it
would do disservice to the intent of the bill to include verbiage
addressing entrepreneurial activity.
Number 151
MS. CALL replies she does not see a problem with adding language
addressing entrepreneurial activity. However she does know that
some programs are just focused on training and education. It is
something that could be added, but she hesitates because many of
the entities do not have the background to provide that type of
training.
Number 163
CHAIRMAN LEMAN thanks Ms. Call, and says the committee will
probably add wording addressing entrepreneurial activity. The
chairman appreciates what Ms. Call is trying to accomplish, and
totally supports that, but also wants to acknowledge that there may
be situations where it would be preferable for someone to have
their own business.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks if anyone else wishes to testify on SB 255.
Hearing none, he announces the committee will hold SB 255 to work
on language addressing entrepreneurial activity, and bring the bill
back up for consideration on Monday.
Number 175
CHAIRMAN LEMAN brings up HB 49 (ABSENTEE VOTING & USE OF FAX) as
the next order of business before the Senate State Affairs
Committee. The chairman invites the prime sponsor to join the
committee at the table to testify.
Number 180
REPRESENTATIVE TERRY MARTIN, prime sponsor of HB 49, states the
idea of the bill is to catch up with modern times. Alaska is the
largest state in the union, and probably has more travel problems,
for numerous reasons. Representative Martin thinks those problems
disenfranchise some people from the right to vote, and having
modern means at their disposal to use in voting would help solve
the problem. Using fax machines to vote was allowed by emergency
regulation during the Persian Gulf Crisis and War. Representative
Martin states he was told 54 people voted by fax machine at that
time. Voting by fax can work; it can remain confidential.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN says the U.S. Justice Department has analyzed
the confidentiality laws in many states, and says the minor chance
of losing confidentiality in voting is minimal compared to the loss
of the right to vote. Many states are getting involved in voting
by electronic means.
HB 49 goes a lot further than what was originally intended. In the
House Finance Committee, Representative Brown proposed some good
amendments, which were added. The original intent was to start off
on a smaller scale, but the majority of people wanted to go for the
program completely. At this point, HB 49 would allow anyone to
vote electronically by the time of the general election.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN thinks HB 49 is a good bill. He introduces
Mr. Swanson from the Division of Elections to fill in the details
of the process. Representative Martin informs the committee he
needs to go to another meeting, and that his aide, Mr. Anderson,
will speak for the bill.
Number 239
TOM ANDERSON, Aide to Representative Martin, states HB 49 will
allow the faxing of a request for an absentee ballot application,
for the Division of Elections to fax the application to the
requestor, for the requestor to fax the filled out application back
to the Division of Elections, for the ballot to be faxed to the
requestor, and then for the voter (requestor) to fax the ballot
back to the Division of Elections.
MR. ANDERSON says there are two provisions the requestor must
fulfill to vote via fax: one, they must sign a secrecy waiver,
which basically states they are giving up their right to secrecy
and one person will see their ballot, and secondly, the absentee
voter must take an oath. The faxed absentee ballot application
must be received four days before the election, compared to seven
days before the election for a mailed request.
HB 49 does not allow for electronic voter registration. HB 49
defines "state election", so that it is clear the electronic
transmission of absentee ballots will not be used in state-run REAA
(Regional Education Attendance Area) elections, coastal resource
area board elections, or local option elections.
Finally, persons eligible to vote absentee by electronic ballot
would be anyone within the state who is not in their respective
election districts, anyone in another part of the U.S., and anyone
outside the U.S. So basically, anyone who is outside their
election district could vote by electronic transmission if they
follow the guidelines and parameters set up in HB 49. If passed,
persons could begin voting by electronic transmission in the 1994
general election.
Number 278
CHAIRMAN LEMAN thanks Mr. Anderson and notes the existence of a
memorandum from Legislative Counsel Jack Chenoweth regarding a
proposed technical amendment. According to the memo, an amendment
made on the floor of the House of Representatives was not reflected
in the title, and this technical amendment would simply change the
title to reflect the change made on the house floor. The only
change between the version passed in the house and the Senate State
Affairs committee substitute adds Mr. Chenoweth's proposed
technical amendment.
Number 299
SENATOR ELLIS makes a motion to adopt SCS CSHB 49(STA) in lieu of
CSHB 49(FIN) AM.
Number 300
CHAIRMAN LEMAN, hearing no objection, notes SCS CSHB 49(STA) has
been adopted in lieu of CSHB 49(FIN) AM. The chairman asks Mr.
Swanson if he has any testimony he would like to add.
Number 303
JOE SWANSON, Director, Division of Elections says the division
supports HB 49. The division feels strongly that the state has
entered modern times and voting by electronic transmission should
be allowed. He feels this would give some people an advantage in
voting that they may not have had before. There were some early
concerns regarding confidentiality, but the division feels it can
preserve as much of the confidentiality process as possible through
regulations.
MR. SWANSON states there was also some discussion of potentiality
for fraud. However, the division did not see any opening in HB 49
allowing the potential for fraud in the voting process.
Number 316
CHAIRMAN LEMAN says his main concern would be ballot security and
the potential for fraud. If the division can be sure of ballot
security, he thinks HB 49 is a good idea.
Number 320
MR. SWANSON replies the intent is to have two people in the
Division of Elections Anchorage office assigned to this program.
All absentee voting by fax would be done through one office. An
individual in the Division of Elections would receive the fax, make
sure everything on the ballot was clear, remove the name, and put
the ballot in the ballot box. The faxed document would be put in
an envelope, sealed, and kept for records for seven years.
Number 330
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks how the division will ensure that the person
who voted by fax isn't going to vote again.
Number 333
MR. SWANSON responds all absentee voting is done by number, by
individual. When a faxed ballot comes in, that ballot is checked
in the division's computer and voter registration system. It would
be virtually impossible for someone to vote twice and the division
not catch it.
Number 344
SENATOR DUNCAN asks if people will be able to register to vote by
fax.
Number 350
MR. SWANSON replies there is nothing currently in statute
prohibiting the Division of Elections to allow persons to vote by
fax. If someone faxed the division a registration form, the
division would accept it if it was properly filled out and
notarized. There is nothing in regulation or statute addressing
registration by electronic transmission.
Number 357
SENATOR DUNCAN asks Mr. Swanson if the motor-voter bill will
address electronic registration.
MR. SWANSON says the motor-voter bill does not address electronic
voter registration. However, electronic registration is not
prohibited.
Number 376
SENATOR ELLIS asks if there is any requirement under HB 49 for
confirmation of receipt of the fax by the Division of Elections.
MR. SWANSON says the intent was to put provision in regulation to
send notices of receipt. He agrees whole-heartedly with Senator
Ellis that receipt of faxes received should be made.
Number 388
SENATOR ELLIS asks Mr. Swanson what he thinks about addressing
receipt of faxes in the legislation.
MR. SWANSON responds he would have no problem with that.
Number 393
MR. ANDERSON states, in response to Senator Duncan's question on
registering to vote by electronic transmission, that at the top of
page three of the bill is a provision that he may want deleted.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks Mr. Anderson what the discussion in the house
was regarding the provision on page three disallowing registering
to vote by electronic transmission.
MR. ANDERSON says no one raised the issue, that he can recall. He
certainly is not opposed to deleting that provision.
Number 402
SENATOR DUNCAN asks if, in Mr. Swanson's opinion, that provision
prohibits registering to vote by electronic transmission.
Number 405
MR. SWANSON responds that provision only prohibits registration by
electronic transmission at the same time a person applies for a
ballot by electronic transmission.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN thinks that is probably a valid concern for the time
being, just to help maintain security of the election process.
MR. SWANSON again states that the provision on page three
addressing electronic transmission of registration does not
prohibit electronic transmission of registration.
Number 409
SENATOR ELLIS comments that many other nations, including a number
of European nations allow same-day registration and voting, and do
not have problems with fraud. He is not proposing that, but does
not want people to have the impression that it would be an
impossible or unreasonable thing to do.
Number 425
SENATOR ELLIS asks if all steps must be done by fax, or if someone
could, for example, request the absentee ballot in person, but vote
by fax.
MR. SWANSON responds a person does not have to do all steps in the
process by fax, but could mix and match any of the steps.
SENATOR ELLIS asks if there are other states that currently do what
HB 49 proposes to do.
Number 432
MR. ANDERSON replies seven other states allow some form of fax. HB
49 is modeled on the Montana law. They allow faxing for the
complete process. He believes one other state allows faxing for
the entire process also. He does not believe any other state other
than Montana allows the faxing of the marked ballot itself.
Number 436
SENATOR ELLIS remarks that there have been several high-profile
election fraud cases in the country recently, and a number of those
involved absentee ballots.
SENATOR ELLIS asks if the bill was originally intended to address
the needs of overseas military personnel.
MR. ANDERSON says HB 49 was not drafted to address the particular
needs of overseas military personnel. Representative Martin
received some calls from Peace Corps volunteers and some other
individuals, military included, but it was not designed primarily
to answer the needs of military personnel. The intent was to
implement the program in segments, starting first with people
outside the United States. But Representative Brown had the
foresight to suggest opening it up to everyone outside their own
district.
SENATOR ELLIS agrees that everyone should have equal access to
voting by fax, rather than just overseas Peace Corps volunteers and
military personnel. He asks if Representative Martin agrees that
the program should be open to everyone.
MR. ANDERSON confirms that Representative Martin agrees 100% that
the program be available to everyone who might need to utilize it.
Representative Martin assumed it might be too difficult to
implement on a large scale, but was happy to change the bill.
Number 456
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks if there is further committee discussion.
Hearing none, he announces HB 49 will be held in order to work on
it. He expects the committee will move the bill on Monday.
Number 460
CHAIRMAN LEMAN brings up SB 302 (UNIFORM INTERSTATE FAMILY SUPPORT
ACT) as the next order of business before the Senate State Affairs
Committee. Joining the committee from the Department of Revenue is
Ms. Derr, Mr. Mallonee, and Ms. Page.
Number 469
LARAINE DERR, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Revenue, says the
department has provided the committee members with a comparison
between ERISA and UIFSA.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN thanks Ms. Derr for the comparison and says he has
looked through it. The chairman asks Mr. Kirk to testify.
Number 489
KENNETH KIRK, testifying from Anchorage, states he is speaking for
himself, though he does work with and act as legal counsel for
Family Support Group. He also emphasizes that he is in favor of SB
302 and UIFSA, though it may not sound like it because he intends
to air some very specific criticisms of SB 302.
UIFSA is needed because the present URISA system has a real
potential to ruin people's lives. Mr. Kirk says he has seen
situations where there are two different orders from two different
states, both of which are valid and enforceable, which are
completely inconsistent with one another.
MR. KIRK states he faxed a copy of a letter, which was originally
sent to William Grant Cowell (sp?), about the original draft of the
legislation before it was put into SB 302, to the Senate State
Affairs Committee on March 22, 1994. Mr. Kirk does not know if he
sent it in time for it to be included in the bill packets, but he
hopes the committee had time to look at it, because most of the
criticisms he has are contained in that letter.
Number 503
MR. KIRK states he will review his biggest concerns. First, it
does not appear anyone has taken the time to harmonize SB 302 with
AS 25.27, which is the CSED (Child Support Enforcement Division)
statute. He thinks there are potential problems related to
conflict between the provisions of SB 302 and AS 25.27. He
suggests legislative counsel review AS 25.27 for purposes of making
AS 25.27 more consistent with UIFSA.
His second concern relates to specific things he thinks should be
changed in SB 302, without causing any harm to the overall intent
of the bill. On page 4, line 24, the language gives the state
jurisdiction over the non-resident. That language is not
constitutional, pursuant to a case called Burnham (sp?) v. Superior
Court. It is also bad public policy, is unfair, and should be
eliminated. For instance, someone who has never had any connection
with Alaska, but their ex-spouse moved here with the kids, flies up
to Alaska periodically to see the children or to accompany them out
of state. When the out-of-state parent flies up to see the
children, they can then be handed a complaint and summons in a
child support case, and will then be subject to Alaska's laws on
child support, rather than the laws of the place in which that
person actually resides. So Mr. Kirk sees a problem with that, as
a public policy matter.
MR. KIRK also sees a problem on page 10, line 9, subsection (b)
regarding tribunals. Mr. Kirk states there are several powers
contained in SB 302 which are not proper for administrative
agencies of the state to have, including citing a person for
criminal contempt, and the issuance of bench warrants. Mr. Kirk
would hope that if SB 302 is passed, CSED will recognize that they
do not really have that authority, and they will not try to issue
bench warrants and hold people in criminal contempt. It would be
much easier to simply delete that provision from SB 302, rather
than go to court over it. Since the bill states CSED can use any
other remedies already in law, that provision could be left out.
MR. KIRK's next concern is with Section 25.25.312 on page 13,
starting on line 16, NONDISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION IN EXCEPTIONAL
CIRCUMSTANCES. Mr. Kirk states this is inconsistent with
25.27.275, which states the agency shall relate the information
about the location of a child if the obligor is current in child
support and there is a visitation or joint custody order in effect.
His second concern with Section 25.25.312 is that it is ex parte,
which means the obligor does not even get a chance to present their
side of the story. The custodial parent can simply tell the
enforcement officer that the non-custodial parent is dangerous, or
scares them, or something like that, and without any contest, all
of a sudden there is what appears to be a permanent order in place.
There is no provision set up for appeal at a formal hearing, so the
non-custodial parent might not even get to contest that order.
Finally, there are no real standards for it, it is a very broad
statement. CSED does not have any expertise with regard to issues
relating to the health, safety, or liberty of the child, or of
domestic violence. That should be left with the courts, not with
CSED. Or at the least, there should be better standards and an
appeals process.
MR. KIRK states he also has a concern with the next section of the
bill, Section 25.25.313, COSTS AND FEES. What this provision would
essentially do is require the obligee, when they lose an appeal, to
pay the entire attorney's fee bill for the other side. But if the
obligee wins, all the obligee is entitled to is, at most, about
one-quarter to one-third of attorney's fees. So SB 302 would
basically set up unequal standards for the custodial parent to the
obligee. The mind-set between too many of these laws is that the
obligee is the "bad guy". All the obligee has ever done wrong,
necessarily, is that some judge decided at some time that the
obligee's children would be better off spending most of their time
with the other parent. There may not even be that, if there has
never actually been a court case, such as if the child was born out
of wedlock or the marriage was terminated through dissolution.
That whole section, 25.25.313, should be dropped.
Number 565
MR. KIRK states Section 25.25.608, which precludes any further
contest of the order with respect to a matter that could have been
asserted at the time of registration, should be "softened" up a bit
in default cases. In both court cases and administrative cases, if
a person has a good-faith reason for not responding, you will often
be allowed to re-open a case. Situations like this are common in
Alaska. A person gets served the day before going out on a crab
processor for six months, and in the meantime defaults on an order.
This section would appear to completely preclude a person from any
opportunity to re-open the matter later for redetermination.
Number 574
MR. KIRK states he will be in Juneau March 24th and 25th for a
Correctional Industries Commission meeting and would be glad to
meet with legislators or staff to help work on SB 302 any time the
commission is not taking care of business, if anyone wishes to do
so. He acknowledges the complexity of SB 302, and is not always
sure himself how the bill will play out in practice, but recognizes
that some people may be less sure of it than he, and so would like
to make himself available to work on it. He can be reached at the
above phone number.
MR. KIRK thanks the committee members for their time.
Number 580
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asks if the Department of Revenue could meet with
Mr. Kirk to discuss his concerns.
TAPE 94-19, SIDE B
Number 583
MS. DERR says the department has not talked to Mr. Kirk before, and
would like to review his suggestions before commenting on them.
The department can meet with Mr. Kirk while he is in Juneau.
DONNA PAGE, Senior Hearing Officer, Department of Revenue says the
department has considered some of the concerns mentioned by Mr.
Kirk and can explain them to him.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN gives Ms. Page a copy of the letter faxed to the
committee by Mr. Kirk. The chairman asks if anyone else wishes to
testify today on SB 302. Hearing none, he announces the committee
will hold SB 302 over to work on.
Number 568
CHAIRMAN LEMAN adjourns the Senate State Affairs Committee meeting
at 9:54 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|