Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/23/2002 03:45 PM Senate STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE STATE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
April 23, 2002
3:45 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Gene Therriault, Chair
Senator Randy Phillips, Vice Chair
Senator Ben Stevens
Senator Bettye Davis
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Rick Halford
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 331(STA)
"An Act relating to appointment of persons to positions that
require confirmation by the legislature; and providing for an
effective date."
MOVED CSHB 331(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 344(STA)
"An Act increasing fees for driver's licenses, instruction
permits, and identification cards; and providing for an effective
date."
MOVED CSHB 334(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 361
"An Act relating to coordination of the application, review,
decision, and appeal process for certain project permits, leases,
plans, notices, disposals, licenses, preferences, grants,
reservations, approvals, and sales; relating to the Alaska
Coastal Policy Council and the Alaska Coastal Management Program;
relocating certain functions of the office of management and
budget to a statutorily created division of project assistance in
the Office of the Governor; repealing the Environmental
Procedures Coordination Act; and providing for an effective
date."
HEARD AND HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 363
"An Act relating to electioneering communications and
communications intended to influence the outcome of an election
and to campaign misconduct in the second degree; and providing
for an effective date."
HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
HB 331 - See State Affairs minutes dated 4/2/02.
HB 344 - No previous action to record.
SB 361 - No previous action to record.
SB 363 - No previous action to record.
WITNESS REGISTER
Linda Sylvester
Aide to Representative Pete Kott
Alaska State Capitol, Room 204
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 331 and HB 344
Mary Marshburn
Director
Department of Administration
PO Box 110200
Juneau, AK 99811-0200
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 344
Marty Rutherford
Deputy Commissioner
Department of Natural Resources
400 Willoughby Ave.
Juneau, AK 99801-1724
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 361
Patrick Galvin
Director
Division of Governmental Coordination
P.O. Box 110030
Juneau, AK 99811-0030
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 361
Kurt Fredriksson
Deputy Commissioner
Department of Environmental Conservation
410 Willoughby Suite 303
Juneau, AK 99801-1795
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 361
Joe Balash
Staff to Senate State Affairs Committee
Alaska State Capitol, Room 121
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained provisions of SB 363
Dana Olson
Box 5438
Wasilla, AK 99654
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 361
Bonnie Jack
TH
1063 W. 20 Ave
Anchorage 99503-1714
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 363
Brooke Miles
Director
Alaska Public Offices Commission
2221 E. Northern Lights Rm 128
Anchorage, AK 99508-4149
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 363
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-24, SIDE A
CHAIRMAN GENE THERRIAULT called the Senate State Affairs
Committee meeting to order at 3:45 p.m. Present were Senators
Davis, Phillips, Stevens and Chairman Therriault.
HB 331-PRESENTMENT OF GOVERNOR'S APPOINTEES
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT took up HB 331.
MS. LINDA SYLVESTER, Aide to Representative Pete Kott, said that
the statute was drafted in a convoluted way. She explained the
color-coded statute in the packet before the Committee. The
yellow highlighted information was general language dealing with
initial presentments made by the Governor to the Legislature.
The blue highlighted information deals with the specific
situation of presentments that follow later in the session,
typically when the Legislature fails to confirm a presentment.
The pink highlighted information is the general discussion about
how presentments and confirmations are to be handled. HB 331
seeks to clarify and clean up ambiguities in the statute. It is
unclear whether the Legislature can confirm an appointment during
a special session. Based on opinions from the legislative legal
department and other procedures from the statute, it is believed
that the intent of the statute is that all presentments and
confirmations occur during the regular session. HB 331 has
cleaned that up and changed some timeframes that are in the
current statute that put the confirmations outside of the regular
session.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked if there were any questions from
committee members.
SENATOR BEN STEVENS asked if the blue highlighted section was the
only one being changed.
MS. SYLVESTER answered yes. The bill takes out the timeframes,
substitutes "five days" with "immediately" and removes a twenty-
day provision saying the Legislature has to confirm a presentment
within 20 days of receipt from the Governor.
SENATOR STEVENS said that in AS 39.05.080(1)(B) the words "on or
before" were being added and asked when the boards expired.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said they expire all throughout the year.
MS. SYLVESTER explained that when the process was set up at
statehood, each appointee was put on a schedule. Since then, the
timeline was determined by when vacancies occurred. The only
timeline that is in the statute pertains to presentment and
confirmation.
SENATOR STEVENS said the bill stated, "persons to be appointed to
fill a position or membership, the term of which will expire on
or before March 1 during that session of the legislature."
MS. SYLVESTER said the statute encourages the Legislature to
address the presentments during the session as early as possible.
This includes all of the positions the Governor filled during the
interim and all the positions that will expire before March 1.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked if there were other questions. He said
that he had not prepared a CS and asked if there were any
amendments from committee members. He made note of the zero
fiscal note.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS moved to pass CS HB 331 (STA) from the
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal note.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT noted that the CS was the House State Affairs
version of the bill.
CSHB 331(STA) moved from committee with attached fiscal note and
individual recommendations.
HB 344-INCREASE DRIVER'S LICENSE/PERMIT FEES
MS. SYLVESTER said that HB 344 was introduced by the House Rules
Committee at the request of the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV).
HB 344 increases the fees for drivers' licenses and ID cards by
$5.00 and learners' permits by $10.00. It allows DMV to
implement a conversion to a digital drivers' licensing system.
Examples of what a drivers' license might look like were in the
packets. She pointed out that the information on the drivers'
licenses is stipulated in statute and this bill would not have
any impact on that. The back of the license would have a barcode
that would allow the police to scan and protect the licensee from
having their private details broadcast.
She said the fee increase would go into the General Fund and is
expected to increase revenues by $750,000 to $900,000. The cost
of implementing the conversion is expected to be $500,000, which
is for the computer systems only. DMV already has the funds for
the equipment.
She said that Alaska is one of the three remaining states still
using the old Polaroid personal identification system. By
converting, Alaska will step up its efforts to ensure the
integrity of this nation's individual identification system.
Since September 11, there has been focus on the need to harden
the drivers' license system as a security measure. There was
discussion about switching to a national identification system,
but that idea was abandoned. However, there is still a need for
increased security and Alaska's identification system is a weak
point. She explained that the ID card is considered to be a
"breeder document," which can be parlayed into other documents
such as airline tickets, passports, checking accounts, firearms
permits, credit cards, etc. The drivers' license is the
cornerstone of the identity theft phenomenon, which resulted in
$7 billion in losses last year.
She said another problem with the current system is underage
individuals obtaining or manufacturing fraudulent identification
cards. The packet contains resolutions and comments from
restricted sales individuals who support the conversion of the
system.
MS. SYLVESTER explained that the drivers' license has become a
critical component in our society's security, both personal and
financial. The State of Alaska has a responsibility to ensure
the integrity of that system. Yet there is a lot of anecdotal
information about how the identification cards can be
fraudulently obtained. DMV doesn't have the ability to pull up
photographs. Someone can easily steal your Social Security
Number or mail and go into the DMV and if they match your
biometric data, they can walk out with your identification. If
you travel and you lose your license or have it stolen, DMV is
also unable to replace your lost identification with your
photograph. This makes it very difficult to get back to Alaska
without one of the only proofs that the airline will consider as
an identification form.
She said Polaroid is in Chapter 11 bankruptcy and has sold their
personal identification business to a company called Digimark,
who will only supply Alaska with film until the end of the year.
The other two states that still use the Polaroid system, Oklahoma
and Rhode Island, have already put out RFP's for digital systems.
This will also impair Alaska's ability to get commercial-grade
Polaroid film. She said that when digital cameras came onto the
market, it was the death knell of the old Polaroid drivers'
license system.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked Mary Marshburn to speak.
MS. MARY MARSHBURN, Director of DMV, said that when DMV started
pursuing a digital system, there were seven "photo states,"
meaning states that still use the instant photograph process. At
the beginning of the session, there were only three "photo
states." Now Alaska is the only state without even a RFP out for
services for a digital licensing system.
She said the current system is a manual process; it uses
preprinted forms, instant photographs and a laminated security
pouch. It is subject to theft, fraud and alteration. Security
is the biggest advantage to a digital system. It is more
difficult to alter or replicate because it does not use
preprinted forms or pouches or instant photos. The information
is computer generated and fused onto a chip. Computer generation
and flexibility enables DMV to place more and more complex
security features into the license. The photo can be stored on a
server, which allows DMV personnel to access it to verify your
identity the next time you need a license or when you travel.
MS. MARSHBURN said the biggest benefactor of a conversion would
be law enforcement. HB 344 enjoys the support of law enforcement,
including the Alaska State Troopers and the Municipality of
Anchorage Police Department, which is computerizing its cars and
are looking forward to the change. Alcohol and tobacco sellers
are also in support of HB 344 because a new system can help them
with their underage problem.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked if people regularly came up to the
counter at DMV to commit license fraud and alteration.
MS. MARSHBURN said that in the past four months in one Anchorage
office alone they have had five arrests.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked if there would be an embedded chip or
just a barcode.
MS. MARSHBURN said that although the disc upon which the image
and license data is fused is referred to as a "chip," it is not a
"chip" as we think of a computer chip.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked whether the barcode contained the
information or if it contained the license number that would
access the information through the computer system.
MS. MARSHBURN asked if he was looking at the example in the
packet.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said yes.
MS. MARSHBURN said that the barcode would contain all of the
information required by law, such as name, address, date of
birth, sex, hair, eyes and weight, along with any driving
restrictions, but not the Social Security Number.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT pointed out that the underage license
examples in the packet were laid out vertically. He asked if
this was the intention of DMV to do this.
MS. MARSHBURN said she was excited to have the licenses be
formatted that way. DMV wants to keep the adult licenses in a
horizontal format and the underage licenses in a vertical format.
It helps everyone who has to deal with the age group. She noted
that the vertical license says "under 21 until" along the top.
With the current system, the alcohol or tobacco salesperson has
to look at the birth date and calculate the age, which can be
difficult and time consuming. Using the "under 21 until" system
would be much easier for them.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked if there were other questions for Ms.
Marshburn from the committee members. He asked if Del Smith had
comments or if he was just there to answer questions.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DEL SMITH, Department of Public Safety, said
he was there to answer questions.
SENATOR PHILLIPS asked if Social Security Numbers were off the
drivers' license now.
MS. MARSHBURN said they were. As of last year, Social Security
Numbers were not allowed on the face of the drivers' licenses,
nor would they be in the barcode.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT pointed out that the increased fees would
cause increased revenues of $900,000 and the contractual IT
system cost would be $500,000 the first year.
SENATOR PHILLIPS asked Ms. Marshburn if DMV would take
responsibility for the fees being raised and not tell complaining
customers that the Legislature did this.
MS. MARSHBURN said yes. The fees are equal to $1.00 per year,
and they were last raised eleven years ago. She has no qualms
saying it is well worth it.
SENATOR PHILLIPS said he'd been through this before where the
employees said the Legislature did it.
MS. MARSHBURN promised that wouldn't happen.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked if there was anyone else that wished to
testify on HB 344. There was no one. He asked if there were any
amendments from committee members.
SENATOR BETTYE DAVIS moved to pass CS HB 334 (STA) from the
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal note.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked if there were any objections.
CSHB 334(STA) moved from committee with attached fiscal note and
individual recommendations.
SB 361-PERMIT COORDINATION & COASTAL ZONE MGMT
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT announced that the committee would now take
up SB 361.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT, sponsor of SB 361, said that his intention
was solely to introduce the bill; he didn't expect final action
this year. He said that the regulators and the regulated felt
that the regulatory system that had come together over the years
was cumbersome in areas. He pointed out that there were
processes that were not coordinated amongst state agencies and
there was some duplication in the processes. The problems had
been dealt with over the years through a piece-meal system. He
thought that it was time for the Legislature to look at the
entire system and see if it was time to start from scratch and
put together a better-coordinated system. He has been involved
in this overall issue for a number of years and has talked to
division directors and commissioners and found that there is a
lot of interest from state employees that the Legislature look at
changes. The Governor introduced a bill a few years ago that was
used as a basis for SB 361. He doesn't propose that this is a
perfect bill at this stage. He wanted to get some input from the
state agencies, the regulated communities and the citizen
watchdogs as to what was beneficial in the bill and what areas of
the bill might have pitfalls so that he can work on the bill with
those groups during the interim. He announced that he wanted to
aim for better coordination amongst the agencies so that an
appellant who is appealing one issue didn't have different appeal
timelines in different agencies. He wants to create a more
streamlined and uniform permitting system.
MS. MARTY RUTHERFORD, Deputy Commissioner of the Department of
Natural Resources (DNR), said that Pat Galvin would be the lead
spokesperson for the State.
MR. PATRICK GALVIN, Director of Division of Governmental
Coordination in the Office of the Governor, said his division is
responsible for the implementation of the Alaska Coastal
Management Program. SB 361 is very similar to SB 186, which was
introduced at the Governor's request in 1997. They are looking
for an efficient decision making process that eliminates
obstacles to development while allowing the public to influence
those decisions, provides for easier and fewer applications,
allows coordinated review of all agency permit requirements for a
particular project, consolidates public notices and provides for
a more efficient appeal process. In September 1997 after the
Governor's bill was introduced, the Administration had a
streamlining workshop with participants from industries,
conservation groups, local governments and state agencies to talk
about the principles in the context of the bill that was in front
of the Legislature at that time. A majority of the group agreed
that these were important issues that needed work, but could not
agree on an approach to achieve them. Although the bill didn't
move through the Legislature, the Administration has since
continued to look at ways to achieve the goals without
legislation.
MR. GALVIN said they looked at ways in which the individual
agencies can better use the general permitting process and other
such vehicles to concentrate the efforts of permitters and the
public on those projects that have the greatest impact or occur
in the most sensitive locations. They have undertaken a variety
of projects to improve and simplify the permit applications,
including increasing the use of the Internet. They have also
increased the level of coordination of the agencies in the public
notice process. In the area of coastal management, they have
drafted guidance to staff on process-related issues to improve
the level of permit coordination that occurs in the consistency
review process. They are in the final stages of a revision to
the coastal management consistency review regulations to provide
for more efficient coordination in the process. There are also
more specific things they have done.
He said while they've made progress in the past few years, they
recognize that there is still a lot of room for improvement.
They believe this is a timely issue, but given the amount of time
left in the Session and the complexity of the issues involved,
they agree that it's not reasonable to expect a solution in the
next few weeks.
He wanted to point out a few areas of concern in SB 361. There
is a lack of specificity regarding the authority of the
coordinating agency in relation to the permitting agencies. This
is particularly troublesome in the non-coastal areas where the
coordinated approach hasn't been used before. It will raise an
issue when the coordinating agency doesn't have a decision to
make on its own and they are only doing the administrative
process in coordinating the decisions of the other agencies.
This may cause a problem when some of the permit decisions
conflict with each other. Currently, through the consistency
review process, they have a common set of guidelines that they
can use to resolve the disputes. The current bill may create an
undue burden on smaller projects by the need for project-specific
negotiations with regard to some timelines that may not be
necessary for smaller projects. There is a lack of specificity
in the bill regarding timelines and time requirements. The
timeline that is designed to satisfy the aims of the bill might
interfere with other statutory requirements. The bill limits the
role of coastal districts and local governments as compared to
the current process in the Coastal Management Program. He noted
that there would be a fiscal impact in bringing the coordinating
review outside of the coastal zone because the work has never
been done before.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked if DNR was acting as a lead agency on
large mining projects. If so, there had been some experience.
MR. GALVIN affirmed that a handful of large mining projects have
gone through a coordinated review outside of the coastal zone.
They were referring to the rest of the projects, which have not
gone through a coordinated review. The section dealing with
administrative appeals needs some specificity with regard to who
decides the issue when there are multiple permits that might be
implicated by an appeal. They are encouraged to hear that both
leading major party gubernatorial candidates have expressed an
interest in resolving this issue and the Division would like to
work with the Committee during the interim and encouraged
participation of the other major stakeholders, such as local
governments, project applicants, conservation groups and tribes.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked if Mr. Galvin had looked at the list of
licensing permits that would be covered under SB 361 on page 3
and 4. He asked if there was anything that needed to be added or
omitted.
MR. GALVIN said that they had looked at the list but hadn't yet
come to an official position. The list is different from that
which had been presented by the Governor in SB 186. There are
certain DNR authorizations that weren't in the previous bill but
are in this bill and vice versa. They haven't had the discussion
as to the appropriate way to handle that. They noted that there
are some Department of Transportation authorizations that are
included in the bill but are currently not subject to a
coordinated review through the Coastal Management Program. The
list would need more work and would require looking at each
individual authorization and thinking about whether or not a
coordinated approach was required.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked if the allowance for public input into
the process was sufficient.
MR. GALVIN said there are a number of people who could better
answer that question. The principle behind the original bill was
that if the processes could be clarified and more easily
understood, then those could be brought together and create a
single review that would make it easier for the public to
participate in the process. To the extent that SB 361 is able to
achieve that, they would feel that there was no decrease in the
public's opportunity to participate.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked if there were questions from other
committee members.
MS. RUTHERFORD added that DNR had been pursuing some efficiencies
since the Governor's bill had been introduced in 1997. She
explained that permitting efficiency is not only about
coordinated notices and reviews, but also about making
information accessible to the public and easy to use and
eliminating the number of times the public must apply for permits
and how they paid for their fees. Those are some of the areas
where DNR has made improvements.
She said amendments to the oil and gas leasing statutes allow
them to offer unleased oil and gas properties on an annual basis
within large geographical areas. They have undertaken a large
mine coordinated review process which has been very effective in
bringing the agencies and the public into an integrated process.
She said there have been many other lesser streamlining
improvements. For instance, mining claims are now being reviewed
in 160-acre blocks. These blocks also facilitate online
permitting, which will be available next year. She noted that
DNR now allows payment of mining rents online. Starting next
fiscal year, they will allow miners to file and pay for claims at
the recorders office only without having to go to another counter
to make rent payments.
In the area of land-use permits, she said commercial recreational
permits for spike camps can now be applied for over the counter.
By the end of this calendar year, DNR will have land-use permit
applications, processing and permit issuance online.
She said that in the area of material sales, DNR has increased
the allowable over-the-counter contract from 100 cubic yards to
200 cubic yards, which decreased the workload associated with
negotiating contracts and the number of times they had to
negotiate a contract.
In the area of land sales, she said DNR now has a website of
lands that are available over-the-counter or are going to be
offered in land sales. Although it has increased their workload
significantly, it is good for the public. By the end of 2002,
the public will be able to purchase over-the-counter parcels
online. The public will also be able to make a sealed bid offer
for a parcel online. Data from land purchases will automatically
be entered into the state land records system, which will
eliminate some double entry.
MS. RUTHERFORD said DNR has other areas of improvements, such as
online access to publications, land title information, records
research and park cabin reservations. The efficiencies are
important to the public and to how the agency does business. She
believes the improvements that have happened and the improvements
that are in the early stages will effect how a permit-
streamlining bill is crafted.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked if there were any questions from
committee members. He asked Ms. Rutherford if there was anything
specific to DNR in SB 361 that concerned her.
MS. RUTHERFORD said that the list on pages 3 and 4 was of
concern. They would like to look at it in the future in terms of
what the bill will eventually do. There are some on the list
they felt needed to be eliminated. Some of the improvements
they've made will change how they approach various permitting
processes and thus may not be necessary as part of the larger
process.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked if she felt that the process should be
determined before deciding what it should apply to.
MS. RUTHERFORD said that some of details of the various permits
would be appropriate in the overall discussion of the bill.
KURT FREDRICKSSON, Deputy Commissioner of the Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC), said that DEC was one of the
primary permitting agencies in the state and SB 361 would have a
large impact on DEC. Permit streamlining and simplification has
been a topic of concern in DEC's effort to do a better job with
permit development while allowing public participation and
carrying out their mission of protecting public health and the
environment. DEC has taken a number of initiatives, such as
working with stakeholder groups in their water program. Some of
the products of that have been seen before the Legislature this
year.
He said DEC has worked with workgroups on how they can use
general permits to streamline some of the permits while
protecting the environment. Where and how general permits are
applied is the key. He said that DEC has general permits for log
transfer facilities, seafood processing facilities and storm
water discharges. DEC is automating the general permits so that
they will be available over the Internet. DEC is also making
progress in their air programs. They undertook a benchmarking
study to look at how other states used the general permitting
process and looked to see how they can take advantage of the
experience of other states and apply it in Alaska. They have
entertained ideas such as permit by rule and standard permit
conditions and are moving ahead on that. They have taken steps
to make things easier electronically. He wanted to caution the
committee that coordinated project permitting should not be
applied to all cases. For large mines and coastal management, it
does make sense.
TAPE 02-24, SIDE B
4:30 p.m.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FREDRICKSSON said that the pipeline office
was a good example where agencies came together to streamline the
permitting process for TAPS. However, if you are only dealing
with a small project, a coordinated review is not necessary as it
is just as effective for the applicant to go through the
coursework with the agencies. He said that there are times when
it is more efficient for DEC to focus on a DEC issue rather than
being brought into a larger debate. He noted that sometimes
permitting is made easier when you have good information. When
they have good ambient water and air quality data in site-
specific information, it can go a long ways to resolving
conflicts and answering questions. The lack of such information
can delay a project. DEC thinks that workgroups are the best way
to deal with issues and as this issue moves forward they suggest
that all the other stakeholders should be involved in the
process.
He said he hasn't had the chance to go over the list in detail,
but DEC will do so. One item that concerned him subsection (b)
on page 6 addressing project application and listing the various
parties that the applications would be available to or would be
notified when applications were received. They have come across
this issue when they do an oil spill prevention and response
contingency plan when they also alert the Prince William Sound
and Cook Inlet Regional Citizens' Advisory Council. He thinks
that the agency should make an effort to contact local
governments when dealing with development or permitted activity.
He didn't notice local governments in the list, although the
coastal districts in the coastal context are one in the same as
local governments.
He said that DEC has looked at their appeal procedures and have
been working on updating their regulations. One of the more
important updated regulations deals with allowing the parties to
settle their differences in an informal process when the parties
are willing to work together to resolve issues. He feels the
appeals process section of the bill is something he would like to
explore to make it a rigid and formal process when necessary, but
still have a way for parties to come together through a mediated
effort to find a way of resolving conflict.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked if there were questions from committee
members.
MS. DANA OLSON said she appreciated that this bill was being held
to get further input. She feels that the issue needs more time
to be looked at. She feels it would be important to get input
from people who are affected and that they be allowed to
participate in the planning process. This would allow the
Committee insight into things that aren't generally considered in
permits and their affects on people. She noted that Title 39 was
not in SB 361. In 1987, the Legislature made a quasi-judicial
decision requiring that the 1984 Chase Agricultural Homestead
Lottery undergo a provision under Title 38, which was not funded.
This has left her in limbo for years. She would like the
Committee to address the issue with her as a go-between between
her and DNR because the system is broken. Her property entrance
is still valid but she is required to do something that she can't
do by herself. The court case is an enforceable policy of the
Coastal Management Act. This could affect other interests beside
herself. She would like it resolved one way or another by the
Committee. She feels this should be codified in law and it
requires some consideration of her interests and DNR's and the
State's interests. She would like some means to participate in
the process.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked if she was part of a coastal service
area.
MS. OLSON said that she lives in the coastal community of Knik.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked if she was part of their service
district.
MS. OLSON said that she was in the Mat-Su Borough coastal
district but the Mat-Su coastal district had been ineffective in
addressing the community's concerns. The district has been cited
in a federal lawsuit in the past and is a system that needs to be
looked at. She pointed out that they were not here today and
thus she can only assume that they weren't interested. She lives
there and she is interested. She is willing to volunteer her
time and effort to provide input if the Committee is willing to
listen.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked if there was anyone else who wished to
testify.
SB 361 was held in committee.
SB 363-CAMPAIGN FINANCE PROVISIONS
CHAIRMAN THERIAULT said that the committee would now take up SB
363 regarding issue ads and what is taking place in Congress in
regards to soft-money issue ads. SB 363 tries to achieve a
better understanding of issue ads and express advocacy and the
line between them. He said that he is trying to come up with a
workable definition of an "electioneering communication." This
moves towards express advocacy and has a clear intent to shape
the outcome of an election.
MR. JOE BALASH, staff to Senate State Affairs Committee, pointed
out that on page 1, line 11 in the section describing the "paid
for by" statement that all communications are supposed to have,
the language "and the total production costs of the advertising"
was added. He said that section was intended to be part of the
overall disclosure in Sec. 2 dealing with when a communication is
made by a group.
SENATOR PHILLIPS asked if that was a drafting error.
MR. BALASH said yes.
SENATOR PHILLIPS asked if Mr. Balash was proposing to delete that
language and add it in Section 2.
MR. BALASH said yes, it could be inserted into line 2 on page 2.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked if Mr. Balash had spoken to legal
drafters about that.
MR. BALASH said yes.
SENATOR PHILLIPS asked if that would be reflected in the
committee substitute.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said yes. He said that he planned to take
public testimony today to figure out areas of concern in SB 363.
There might be some additions, deletions or clarifications.
SENATOR PHILLIPS said that he wanted to clarify that for the
record.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said that was something that should have been
caught before it was introduced.
MR. BALASH noted the language on page 3 starting on line 10
dealing with a definition of an electioneering communication,
"Must, when read as a whole, and with limited reference to
external events, be susceptible of no other reasonable
interpretation but as an exhortation to vote for or against a
specific candidate," came directly from a decision in the '80's
th
by the 9 Circuit Court of Appeals. The United States Supreme
Court has one major decision saying that express advocacy may be
regulated as speech and issue advocacy is in the free zone of
political expression. However, the Court didn't provide much
th
guidance as to where to draw the line. The 9 Circuit Court did
issue a decision using the language cited in the bill, which
wasn't accepted by the United States Supreme Court for further
consideration, so Alaska takes that as the rule of law.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked if the Supreme Court chose not to take
th
the issue up to provide clarification, therefore the 9 Circuit
decision became the law.
MR. BALASH said that was correct.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said that case was the Furgatch case. He
noted that there were a number of examples in the campaign
finance paper in the packets of radio or TV advertisements that
were clearly issue ads. He said that issue ads can easily become
express advocacy with the change of a few words and there is a
gray area in between issue ads and express advocacy. Rather than
try to draw a clear line between issue ads and express advocacy,
SB 363 sought to identify "electioneering communications" and
determine what kinds of limitations or disclosure they can have
on the gray area between advocacy and expression. The courts had
said that if you write a law and it's overly vague and broad and
people can't tell what side of the line they fall on, it has a
chilling effect on expression. The McCain-Feingold legislation
drew a line of 30 days from a primary election and 60 days from a
general election so the courts couldn't say that people didn't
know and therefore out of fear they are refraining from
expressing themselves. He said that SB 363 tries to draw the
line between "electioneering communication" and when the person
clearly is trying to impact the outcome of an election. In the
Buckley v. Valeo case, the court put together a list of words
that indicated express advocacy, using the phrase "such as."
Some of the courts have said that if you don't use the words on
that list, then you're okay. However, the language of the
decision says "words such as," so he feels that it wasn't the
intent of the court to provide a definitive list of words.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said SB 363 attempts to come up with a common
sense definition and application of that definition in
restrictions and requirements for disclosure of the source of
that money as we get closer and closer to an election.
MS. BONNIE JACK said that she is glad that the bill clarifies the
location of total production costs of advertising, but she still
has a question about that. Most of the time during a campaign it
is hard to come up with total production costs when you haven't
completed the project yet. But SB 363 asks for total production
costs. She used an example of initial costs of printed material
as compared with reprinting costs. She wondered if you included
the first time you printed it, or if you only included the
reprinting costs. She noted that the same sort of thing would
happen if you made a TV commercial, and then used the sound track
from the TV commercial and put it in a radio commercial, how do
you determine what the total costs were? She wondered if you
included in the radio costs the cost of the TV commercial. She
said that she is confused and doesn't know what this bill is
getting at. She noted that the bill had been introduced on the
th
18 on April and she would like to see a sponsor letter to
explain why this was done. She noted that the Alaska Public
Offices Commission (APOC) was all about disclosure, and if you
just disclosed everything, including the costs, where the money
comes from, what the expenses are, she would think that would
take care of it. She cited, the language "a party group, or
nongroup entity making a communication" in line 14 on page 1.
She asked why you should have to repeat all this. If you're
advocating for a candidate, you have to file with APOC. She
doesn't understand the purpose behind this. Page 3, line 12
makes reference to a "vote for or against a specific candidate."
She wondered about ballot propositions or initiatives? She feels
the bill was put together too quickly and the drafting error
proves that point. She feels that there was not a lot of thought
put into the bill. It bothers her that this type of bill was put
together so late in a sine die session. She would like to see SB
363 thrown out.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said that was why there is a committee
process.
MS. BROOKE MILES, Director of APOC, said that this bill would
make no change to campaign disclosure law except to add
additional requirements for all candidates, groups, non-group
entities and parties to place the production costs at the end of
the "paid for by" disclosure. She pointed out that production
costs could be professional services donated, which is permitted
as a result of SB 103, and therefore would not seen in the
production costs. There are requirements by the Commission that
this information has to be readable and the costs will also have
to be readable. FCC costs would also be included in radio and
television. All communications that are intended to influence
the outcome of an election or a ballot proposition are currently
covered by the campaign disclosure law, which requires
registration, periodic reports and identification of
communications. She said that if Sec. 2 is intended to require a
24-hour expenditure report, which was part of the original
campaign disclosure law but was thrown out by Buckley v. Valeo,
then it should probably be done in the sections that talk about
reports, that being Sec. 1 of Sec. 040 of the law.
She said that APOC hasn't had the chance to look at the bill
closely yet. She offers her comments on behalf of the Commission
staff who have looked at the bill. APOC discussed the question
of drawing a line between issue advocacy and express advocacy at
length during their meeting in March and determined that it would
be best for them to look at each case on a case-by-case basis.
She noted that election communications rules are all in AS 15.56
and the enforcement burden of that would fall to the Division of
Elections, the Commission has no authority over that. But when
people are looking to the campaign disclosure law to get guidance
on what's required, they may not fall to the definition of
electioneering communications in AS 15.60.
She noted that the fiscal note sent over by the APOC was modest,
but SB 363 would impact APOC because approximately 80% of the
inquiries pending to move toward complaint actions start with
"paid for by" questions and concerns. If SB 363 were to pass,
they would have to disclose total production costs, which might
be inaccurate or missing, that would have to match what is
finally reported on the campaign disclosure reports or they would
be subject to a penalty of $50 per day for a false or inaccurate
claim. The fiscal note would include funding for a hearing, some
travel to conduct training to help people and printing paper and
postage. She noted that this would be the second major campaign
disclosure revision and it would occur during the most active
election session in over ten years and APOC's budget had already
been significantly decreased.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said that he wanted to talk about the 15-5
reports.
MS. MILES asked if he was referring to the contributor reports.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said he understood that this might be a
holdover from previous times in which APOC personnel expended
time and energy needlessly. He asked if this was something that
no longer serves a useful purpose.
5:00 pm
MS. MILES said that it could save a little time by no longer
needing to enter the 15-5 reports into their database. The 15-5
report was an evolutionary process in public information. She
explained that the 1996 campaign finance revision, the
Legislature wanted to delete the requirement to file a 15-5
entirely, but APOC was uncomfortable with that and they came up
with a system in which a report is required only when the
contribution is more than $500 and it must be filed within 30
days. This was changed again in SB 103 so that candidates can
file the report on behalf of the contributor. At that point
since the candidate is not only filing their own report but also
filing the contributor's report, it is no longer a useful check
and balance. She feels that the $500 limit is a little chilling.
Campaign disclosure reports show a lot of contributions at $499
or even $499.99 to keep the burden of reporting from
contributors. She agrees that the report is not of much use
anymore, but in the past it provided useful information to the
public during the times that campaign disclosure reports aren't
filed. It still does that to a degree with respect to large
contributions to ballot proposition groups. But other than that,
it wasn't needed much.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT noted that the original disclosure amount was
more than $500 on the 15-5s.
MS. MILES said that the 15-5s were required when people gave $250
or more.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said there was still a provision that said as
you get close to the election if a person with either one or
multiple contributions over $250, you would still have the 24-
hour requirement for filing a report.
MS. MILES said that contributors have never been required to
report in 24 hours. Contributors used to have 10 days if they
contributed more than $250. Now they have 30 days when they give
$500. And they can't give more than $500 to a candidate.
Candidates must report a contribution of more than $250 from a
single source during the 9 days that precede the election in an
abbreviated format within 24 hours. This information is repeated
in further detail in the 10-day-after report. She noted that the
contributor reports and 24-hour reports are two different things.
She thinks that a lot of discussion came about because APOC at
their March meeting directed staff to begin assessing civil
penalties at the statutory level of $50 per day that the
contributor reports are late. She feels that many candidates
have concerns regarding that.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked if there were any further comments,
questions from committee members, or anybody else who wished to
testify.
SB 363 was held in committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the Senate
State Affairs Committee meeting was adjourned at 5:10 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|