Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/15/2003 09:05 AM 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 STANDING COMMITTEE
April 15, 2003
9:05 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Gary Stevens, Chair
Senator John Cowdery, Vice Chair
Senator Fred Dyson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Gretchen Guess
Senator Lyman Hoffman
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 152
"An Act relating to concealed handguns."
MOVED SB 152 OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 162
"An Act relating to a tobacco product manufacturer's compliance
with certain statutory requirements regarding cigarette sales;
and providing for an effective date."
MOVED SB 162 OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 119
"An Act eliminating the Alaska Public Offices Commission;
transferring campaign, public official, and lobbying financial
disclosure record-keeping duties to the division of elections;
relating to reports, summaries, and documents regarding
campaign, public official, and lobbying financial disclosure;
providing for enforcement by the Department of Law; making
conforming statutory amendments; and providing for an effective
date."
MOVED CSSB 119 (STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 34
"An Act relating to negotiated regulation making; and providing
for an effective date."
MOVED HB 34 OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 114(JUD)(title am)
"An Act relating to the issuance of a search warrant upon the
sworn testimony or affidavit of a person communicated by
telephone, other appropriate means, or facsimile machine."
MOVED CSHB 114 (JUD)(title am) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
SB 119 - No previous action to record.
SB 152 - No previous action to record.
SB 162 - No previous action to record.
HB 34 - No previous action to record.
HB 114 - No previous action to record.
WITNESS REGISTER
Senator Ralph Seekins
Alaska State Capitol, Room 125
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor SB 152
Brian Judy
NRA representative
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 625
Sacramento, CA 95814
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 152
Mike Barnhill
Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law
PO Box 110300
Juneau, AK 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 162
Johanna Bales
Department of Revenue
PO Box 110400
Juneau, AK 99811-0400
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 162
Kevin Jardell
Assistant Commissioner
Department of Administration
PO Box 110200
Juneau, AK 99811-0200
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 119
Brooke Miles
Public Offices Commission Director
Department of Administration
2221 E. Northern Lights, Room 128
Anchorage, AK 99508-4140
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 119
Laurie Churchill
P.O. Box 7043
Nikiski, AK 99635
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 119
Barbara Cotting
Staff to Representative Jim Holm
Alaska State Capitol, Room 110
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 34
Doug Wooliver
Administrative Attorney
Alaska Court System
303 K St.
Anchorage, AK 99501-2084
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 11487
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-19, SIDE A
CHAIR GARY STEVENS called the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 9:05 a.m. Present were Senators
Dyson, Cowdery and Chair Gary Stevens.
The first order of business was SB 152.
SB 152-CONCEALED HANDGUNS
SENATOR RALPH SEEKINS, bill sponsor, paraphrased the sponsor
statement.
In 2002 SB 242 was introduced to simplify and clarify
the procedures for recognizing concealed handgun
permits for other states. As a result of a floor
amendment offered late in the session, recognition was
limited to those permits held by individuals who had
not had a permit denied or revoked.
Although the amendment appeared reasonable on the
surface, it had unintended consequence. Texas, the
second most populous state in the nation, refused
reciprocity with the State of Alaska. The refusal is
technically bureaucratic in nature, yet presents a
barrier to reciprocity. SB 152 attempts to resolve
this issue.
The first section of the bill recognizes permit
holders from other states as valid permit holders in
Alaska. The second section of the legislation requires
the Alaska Department of Public Safety to enter into
reciprocity agreements with other states when it is
necessary to benefit Alaska permit holders.
The House amended the companion bill and he was in agreement. In
section 2 (b) they inserted language "that have the legal
authority to enter into such agreements" between "states" and
"so".
CHAIR GARY STEVENS noted the bill would move to Judiciary next
and it could be amended at that time.
SENATOR JOHN COWDERY asked how many states provide for concealed
permits.
SENATOR SEEKINS replied most states did and the NRA
representative might have the exact number.
SENATOR COWDERY asked how many Alaskans held concealed handgun
permits.
SENATOR SEEKINS deferred the question to Brian Judy.
There were no further questions for Senator Seekins.
BRIAN JUDY, NRA representative, spoke in support of SB 152 and
the proposed amendment. The bill is a technical change and would
have no substantive impact on Alaska. The intent is to open the
recognition of Alaska permits by other states.
In response to Senator Cowdery's questions, he said there are
just over 17,600 Alaskan permit holders. Forty three states
issue permits to law-abiding citizens and of those, there are 25
that currently recognize permits issued to law-abiding citizens
from other states including Alaska.
SENATOR FRED DYSON asked him to comment on the fact that there
have been few cases in which someone with a conceal-carry permit
used their weapon improperly and on the number of cases in which
conceal-carry permit holders have stopped crimes in progress
and/or aided public safety officers.
MR. JUDY said they are finding that although the criterion for
issuance differs from state to state, permit holders virtually
never cause problems. Also, a number of studies have found that
in states with conceal-carry permits crimes did stop. In Alaska,
violent crime increased through the early 1990s. The Alaska
conceal-permit law passed in 1995 and violent crime dropped
dramatically in the years 1996-1998.
SENATOR DYSON noted in some states the police have given
instruction in firearm safety to domestic violence and rape
victims and have seen a significant drop in those crimes. He
asked if he remembered that research.
MR. JUDY did recall that happening in a Florida community. In
response to an increase in crime, the chief of police held a
well-publicized series of firearm safety courses specifically
for women and issued conceal-weapon permits on an emergency
basis. The incidence of rape nearly disappeared immediately.
There were no further questions.
SENATOR COWDERY made a motion to move SB 152 and attached fiscal
note from committee with unanimous consent. There being no
objection, it was so ordered.
SB 162-CIGARETTE SALES REQUIREMENTS
MIKE BARNHILL, Assistant Attorney General, spoke in support of
SB 162. His full testimony as well as the background and
sectional analysis are in the bill file.
The bill relates to the 1998 Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement
(MSA), which gives Alaska a stream of revenue that lasts
indefinitely. However, there are a number of ways the revenue
stream could be reduced, one of which is a non-participating
manufacturer adjustment (NPM). To avoid such an adjustment, a
model statute was adopted in 1999 to level the economic playing
field between tobacco manufacturers that participate in the MSA
and tobacco manufacturers that don't. It requires NPMs to
deposit approximately 1.5 cents into escrow for every cigarette
they sell in the state. The Department of Revenue advises NPMs
of their obligations under Alaska law and if they don't comply,
the case is referred to the Department of Law.
For example, a company in India makes candy flavored cigarettes
and about 100,000 were sold in Alaska without compliance. The
Department of Law filed a suit, which entailed hiring a process
server to carry the complaint summons to India. To avoid this
expense in the future, Alaska enacted complimentary legislation
designed to diligently enforce statutes. If a company failed to
comply with Alaska law, it went on to a list and their
cigarettes were labeled contraband and Alaska distributors were
prohibited from selling those cigarettes. Many states followed
suit but the legislation was a bit different in every state.
Finally the National Association of Attorneys General worked to
prepare a uniform bill and SB 162 is the product of that working
group. It has been introduced and passed in 12 states,
introduced in 20 other states including Alaska and 4 other
states are considering introduction.
A list of cigarettes and companies that are permitted in Alaska
would be created. A distributor could review the list on the
Department of Revenue website to determine which cigarettes they
are able to sell in the state, order them and sell them
accordingly. To get on the list, a tobacco manufacturer must
either certify they are a participating manufacturer under the
MSA or certify they are a NPM and they are in compliance with
the law. The bill provides penalties for non-compliance and
requires NPMs to register or appoint an in-state agent.
If a distributor brings in cigarettes that are on the permitted
list, but the manufacturer is subsequently removed from that
list there is a tax credit available for the distributor.
Finally, if a NPM refuses to comply and the department has to
sue, the department is able to carry the complaint to the
Department of Community and Economic Development.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS recapped the provisions of the bill.
SENATOR JOHN COWDERY asked if the state knew which companies
were trying to avoid paying.
MR. BARNHILL replied the department has a list of about 15
companies on a contraband list.
JOHANNA D. BALES, Department of Revenue, said she administers
the tobacco and cigarette products excise program and enforces
the NPM statute. In what appears to be an attempt to avoid the
escrow payment, new manufacturers and brands appear on a daily
basis. Under this law the manufacturers would be required to
give their information to the department prior to selling their
product. This year there are five or six new manufacturers and
it remains to be seen whether they will make their escrow
payments. From that standpoint, this is important legislation
because it places the responsibility on the manufacturers.
SENATOR COWDERY asked if residents could import personal use
cigarettes.
MS. BALES said they could if the manufacturer was on the list.
An individual who brings in tobacco for personal consumption is
treated no differently than any other taxpayer. They must be
licensed with the Department of Revenue prior to bringing the
cigarettes in under existing tobacco legislation.
SENATOR COWDERY asked about duty free purchases.
MS. BALES explained recent changes in both federal and state law
restrict those purchases for in-state use.
SENATOR COWDERY asked about tobacco sales other than cigarettes.
MS. BALES said just cigarettes and tobacco for roll-your-own
cigarettes are covered under the MSA.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked whether military personnel or fishermen
who buy substantial amounts of tobacco in Seattle and bring it
to Alaska were beyond the scope of the bill.
MS. BALES replied they would be subject to the same
requirements. If the cigarettes were brought within the three-
mile limit the tax would be due.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS verified that the wholesaler in Seattle would
be obliged to make sure the tax was paid.
MS. BALES agreed.
SENATOR COWDERY asked for the definition of a cigarette.
MS. BALES defined it as a tobacco product that is wrapped in
paper. Roll-your-own meets that definition if that product is
intended to make a cigarette. This bill wouldn't change the
definition.
There were no further questions.
SENATOR COWDERY made a motion to move SB 162 and attached fiscal
note from committee with individual recommendations. He asked
for unanimous consent. There being no objection, it was so
ordered.
SB 119-APOC/ CAMPAIGNS/ LOBBYING/ DISCLOSURE
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked for a motion to adopt the committee
substitute (CS).
SENATOR JOHN COWDERY made a motion to adopt CSSB 119 bil2.doc
dated 4/15/03 for discussion purposes. There was no objection.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS explained this is a Governor's bill, which
would eliminate the Alaska Public Office Commission. The CS
would not eliminate the commission, but it would make
substantial changes.
SENATOR COWDERY asked for the differences between this work
draft and the one dated 4/14/03.
KEVIN JARDELL, Assistant Commissioner with the Department of
Administration, explained there were no substantive changes
between the two. The changes were technical clean up.
The original intent of the legislation was to address candidate
frustrations with APOC and the current financial laws. Many of
the frustrations came from not having a mechanism to allow for
an expedited process to stop ongoing violations prior to an
election. After the legislation was introduced, APOC stepped
forward with ideas to fix the problem areas they had identified.
The changes are significant and deserve attention.
BROOKE MILES, APOC Executive Director, briefed the committee on
the bill.
· Raises annual campaign contribution limits for individuals
to contribute to candidates or groups - political action
committees (PACs) from $500 per year to $1,000 per year
· For individuals to contribute to political parties from
$5,000 per year to $10,000 per year
· For groups (PACs) to contribute to candidates from $1,000
under current law to $5,000 per year
· For groups (PACs) to contribute to political parties from
$1,000 to $10,000
Non-group entities or non-profit organizations that participate
differently than PACs:
· Non-group entity to a candidate is raised from $500 to
$1,000
SENATOR COWDERY asked whether a candidate could give surplus
campaign funds to a non-profit and, assuming that was
acceptable, how the non-profit could use those funds.
MS. MILES told him a candidate could give surplus fund to a non-
profit and that wouldn't change under SB 119. She continued to
explain non-profit corporations that form non-group entities
must comply with campaign disclosure laws. They could accept
contributions from individuals of up to $1,000. Ninety percent
of those individuals would have to be Alaska residents and they
would have to report just as a group or candidate reports.
SENATOR COWDERY asked if a candidate could give money to a non-
profit then get it back in the next campaign.
MS. MILES thought that was acceptable but the candidate could
get just $1,000 back.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked if a candidate's church would be
required to report a $500 contribution.
MS. MILES replied churches don't have to report to APOC. Many
charitable organizations don't have non-group entities. There is
a requirement in law that a non-group entity register as the
entity that would participate in political activities and file
campaign disclosure reports. For instance, Boy Scouts, Big
Brothers Big Sisters don't have non-group entities.
MS. MILES explained:
· SB 119 removes municipal elections and candidates from the
state campaign disclosure law. The commission feels that
should be carefully considered and perhaps conceptually
plan for a way that municipalities could opt into the law
and pay a user fee to the state for doing that. The current
campaign disclosure law was enacted in the early 1970s and
municipalities have been part of it. That isn't an area
that the commission is very effective given there are 31
communities that are subject to the law and the commission
has limited resources.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS remarked school boards, city councils and
borough assemblies must have accounted for enormous quantities
of paperwork.
MS. MILES replied the financial disclosure statements and some
campaign disclosure reports are opted out in SB 119. Under
current law a candidate can file a form stating he or she will
not spend more than $2,500 on their campaign and in many
communities all school board and some assembly members file
under that exemption but they still needed to file a financial
disclosure statement. In the years the commission staff is very
busy with state elections, it's quite an effort for the
commission to get materials out for the October municipal
elections.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS said that's all been eliminated in this bill
but there may be some option to buy into the system if so
desired.
MS. MILES replied that was correct, availability was the
commission's concern.
SENATOR COWDERY asked if school districts have ever contributed
to APOC.
MS. MILES replied they haven't in the 20 years she has worked
with the commission.
SENATOR COWDERY asked how they'd determine a value they wanted
to opt in at now.
MS. MILES said they haven't had time to consider that yet, but
it would probably need to be based on the number of candidates
and the number of reports they would be required to file so the
cost would be fair to each community.
SENATOR COWDERY asked for verification that they could do their
own.
MS. MILES said they could. Other states frequently have separate
municipal coverage for each community so they could determine
their own campaign disclosure limits. The commission has set
limits that are practical to state campaigns, but a municipality
might elect to have a lower limit.
SIDE B
10:00 am
SENATOR COWDERY asked how the new limits compare with other
states.
MS. MILES replied it's in the middle.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked about municipalities that opt in and
remarked they don't appear to get much service. He then asked
whether the commission analyzed the financial disclosures from
city councils and borough assemblies or did anything that might
be seen as a benefit to the municipalities.
MS. MILES said the commission has a manager of the financial
disclosure law and she reviews each state filing from judges,
directors, commissioners, or legislators, but she only does
municipal filings every other year.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS opined it's good for the state to get out of
that business. It's not a state responsibility and eliminating
municipalities is wise.
MS. MILES continued:
· SB 119 removes the requirement to file the ten day after
campaign disclosure report. This report is required after
the election when interest is no longer high, but it
doesn't include the total cost of the election. In
addition, this legislation requires the year-end report to
be filed on February 15. It must contain all the costs of
the election and all disbursements must be made by February
1.
· Added is a requirement to file a report 90 days after a
special election. This was a technical requirement that was
needed when the reporting period for state candidates in a
regular election was moved to February 1.
SENATOR COWDERY asked what circumstances might require a special
election.
MS. MILES replied they aren't very common but the bill drafters
wanted to make sure that whatever activity was in a state
special election was captured in the campaign disclosure law.
· The bill would require candidates and groups to report the
names and addresses of all contributors, regardless of the
amount. For contributors giving more than $250 the
candidate and group would also be required to report their
occupation and employer. Currently individuals giving less
than $100 are given a head count while those giving more
must give name, address, occupation and employer. The
changes look forward to the day when there is electronic
filing. Because a candidate is required to keep that
information, as are groups, it was considered expeditious
to have it all reported. The detailed reporting doesn't
come until after $250.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked what the rationale was for reporting
every contribution including names, even those under $100.
MS. MILES said it's simply because candidates are required to
keep those records and, once electronic filing is standard, that
information would need to be entered.
SENATOR COWDERY asked about cases in which a candidate receives
a contribution and doesn't know any of the required information
about the contributor.
MS. MILES explained the commission has a regulation and policy
regarding good faith effort to determine occupation and
employer.
She continued:
· Although the detailed reporting threshold has been
increased to $250 and they ask for the name and address of
everyone, the commission has moved exempt fundraisers into
statute.
· The limit that people could give to candidates was
increased from $250 to $500. The commission looks upon that
as an inflationary increase. This applies to leaflets or
yard signs that an individual pays for.
· For campaign disclosure, financial disclosure and for
lobbying the bill prepares the ground for mandatory
electronic filing. Exemptions would be available as
appropriate. The commission would provide support for those
not in the computer age, but that would likely be an
exemption.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS observed electronic filing would be a
substantial cost savings in terms of doing business.
MS. MILES agreed and added it would allow a reallocation of
staff resources to provide increased training and support.
She continued:
· The bill would remove the prohibition on lobbyists making a
lawful campaign contribution to candidates living outside
the lobbyist's district. The restrictions under the
lobbying law that prohibit lobbyists from being treasurers,
deputy treasurers, campaign managers and delivering
contributions would remain. The lobbyist would be required
to report the contributions made to candidates.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked for the definition of lobbyist.
MS. MILES defined a lobbyist as a person who is paid to directly
communicate with public officials in an effort to influence
official action. If the person is an occasional lobbyist, a
regular employee of a company, they would be subject to the law
once they spend 16 hours in a thirty day period communicating
directly with public officials in efforts to influence official
action.
SENATOR COWDERY asked about school children visiting
legislators.
MS. MILES replied they aren't paid. If the group had reimbursed
expenses and spent more than 16 hours in a 30 day period they'd
be required to file as a representational lobbyist. They
wouldn't be required to pay the fee and wouldn't be subject to
the fund raising restrictions. The company would simply file the
report disclosing the expenses.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS stated, a locally elected official may spend
more than 16 hours, but they aren't paid so they would be
exempted under this proposal.
MS. MILES replied current law exempts all elected and appointed
state and municipal officials from these provisions.
SENATOR COWDERY asked if a dinner engagement would figure in the
total.
MS. MILES replied it would for the salaried person, but not for
children visiting their legislator.
SENATOR COWDERY asked if that was 16 hours in a 30 day period.
MS. MILES said it was and that is four times greater than the
existing regulation and it is put into statute.
SENATOR COWDERY asked about the person that lobbies 20 hours in
one month then never returns to lobby again.
MS. MILES explained that for purposes of being a fundraiser,
that person would be considered to be a lobbyist for one year
from the date of the last registration. As far as being subject
to the lobbying law filing reports, after they've filed the last
report of compensation paid to them for lobbying, they could
terminate and that would end their report filing obligation.
She continued:
· The bill repeals the legislative session bans on soliciting
or accepting campaign contributions for legislative and
gubernatorial candidates.
· She added, campaign disclosure law doesn't prohibit
accepting a contribution during the session; it's the
legislative ethics law. The Alaska State Supreme Court
said this was not constitutional and specifically
struck it from one side of the campaign disclosure
law, but inadvertently left it on another side making
this a housekeeping measure.
SENATOR COWDERY asked if that meant he could have a fundraiser
during session.
MS. MILES advised he could under campaign disclosure law, but he
would be in violation under legislative ethics law.
SENATOR COWDERY asked why the ethics law was in conflict in
light of the supreme court ruling.
MR. JARDELL understood the supreme court was recognizing the
inherent authority of the body to police itself. If the body
imposes the requirement, it is different than the statute.
MS. MILES continued:
· The CS would repeal the requirement that a candidate notify
APOC within five days when he or she makes a contribution
to their own campaign with the hope that will be repaid
once there are surplus funds. On the next campaign
disclosure report the candidate would indicate whether or
not they would like to recoup the contribution if surplus
funds were available. The recoup limit remains the same.
· This allows complaint violations to be expedited by the
commission in appropriate circumstances.
· APOC would have to hold a hearing within 48 hours.
· It would give APOC a cease and desist authority for
advertisements.
· The CS moves the complaint process into statute and
requires a 15 day response and 90 days is the maximum
from complaint to adjudication under any circumstance.
· This shortens the time period for bringing the statute of
limitations on bringing an administrative complaint from
four years to one year.
· It amends the definition of political party to be the same
as the definition used by the Division of Elections.
· On the financial disclosure statement for legislators, the
source of income threshold would be raised to $10,000 from
$1,000.
SENATOR COWDERY asked why public officials must disclose
property ownership.
MS. MILES replied real property has always been part of the law
written by citizen initiative. If the property is sold and
valued at more than $10,000, the name of the purchaser would be
disclosed as well. If the property were gifted, the public
official would still need to show they no longer owned the
property.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS referred to page 25 of the work draft
regarding sources of income. He noted there was no
differentiation between child and dependent child and asked if
he would be expected to disclose his son's employer who lives in
San Diego or his daughter's employer who is a teacher in
Seattle.
MS. MILES replied under AS 39.50 and AS 24.60.200, the
definition section, child only applies to dependent child.
SENATOR COWDERY asked her to clarify that and make it a proposed
amendment.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS agreed that would be a good idea. He noted
this includes page 25, line 11, line 25, line 27 and page 26,
line 1, line 11, line 17.
MS. MILES replied under AS 39.50.400 H1, child means a person's
dependent child or a person's non-dependent child who is living
with the person.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS expressed comfort with that clarification.
SENATOR COWDERY wanted to see reference to the statute to make
it clear.
MS. MILES continued:
· With regard to publicly traded stock holdings, they made an
exception when the filers interest is less than $10,000
That concluded the summary.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked about the differences between the Poet
Account and the Account Poet Reserve.
MS. MILES said they didn't address that and frankly she has
never understood it. Senator Donley asked that there be a Poet
Reserve Account where candidates could put all the money allowed
for transfer for the term of office. She thought it was $5,000
per year so some Senators might have $20,000 and House members
might have $10,000. In the original law they could put the money
in an office account that was named "Poet" by a creative staff
member. Senator Donley determined there was a tax liability
question with the money in the Poet Account so he created the
Poet Reserve Account. The law requires a candidate to have both
accounts. They must put the money in the reserve account then
transfer it out at $5,000 per year. It's a problem for
candidates and she's sorry it's not included in the proposed CS.
If legislators want just one Poet Account the commission
wouldn't take issue with that.
She added, with reapportionment and knowing some Senators would
have two year terms, the commission made an exception in 2002
and allowed some Senators to keep $20,000 for a two year term.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS remarked it's confusing and he would
certainly like to see some clarification of the issue.
SENATOR COWDERY said it could be addressed in the Finance
Committee.
There was an inaudible response from Mr. Jardell who was seated
in the audience.
SENATOR COWDERY asked how much this would reduce the commission
budget.
MS. MILES replied it was difficult to quantify. Paper printing
and postage would amount to about $5,000. Once there is
electronic filing, there would be additional reductions due to
staff reallocation.
SENATOR COWDERY asked how many staff APOC had currently.
MS. MILES replied there are ten full time staff and one part
time staff. The Juneau administrator that does the lobbying law
is full time and they have part time clerical staff. In
Anchorage there are nine staff. The current budget is $752.6
with just enough contractual services to conduct business. The
commission will have to meet more frequently to adjudicate
claims.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked about the cost associated with
electronic filing.
MS. MILES replied it is substantial and is currently in the
Governor's Capital Budget funding request for a one time
$450,000 for campaign disclosure, lobbying, financial disclosure
for legislators and all public officials.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked if it was for new equipment and
software.
MS. MILES advised it was mostly for programming. Fifty thousand
dollars is in hardware. It's a one-time expense after which
there would just be standard agency support for software.
SENATOR COWDERY made a motion to adopt amendment #1 to remove
"spousal equivalent" wherever it appears and replace it with
"domestic partner" or other appropriate language.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked if Ms. Miles could outline the
difference.
MR. JARDELL said,
The intent is to recognize the sanctity of marriage
and the spouse, but there is no true equivalent
partner or other relationship with a spouse and in
recognizing that respect I think the Administration
would support the concept and idea behind that.
It's a legal and social equivalent. Senator Cowdery's amendment
is conceptual and would give the drafters the ability to get the
substance of the law.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked if there was objection to amendment #1
and there was none.
MR. JARDELL suggested amendment #2 to remove occupation
information when the contribution is under $250. This clears a
drafting error because the drafters intended to remove it.
SENATOR COWDERY moved conceptual amendment #2 as suggested.
There was no objection.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS made a motion to adopt conceptual amendment
#3 to clarify that any reference to child meant dependent child.
There was no objection.
LAURIE CHURCHILL from Nikiski testified she was concerned with
significant changes that would impair the general public's
availability for public information as far as financial
disclosures. They want to ensure APOC is able to function to
provide educational information to the public.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS remarked there would be real advantages with
electronic filing and with regard to full disclosure, it's
important to know who contributed to which campaign immediately.
SENATOR COWDERY made a motion to move CSSB 119 (STA) from
committee with individual recommendations and attached, revised,
fiscal notes. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
HB 34-REPEAL SUNSET OF NEGOTIATED REG.MAKING
BARBARA COTTING, staff to Representative Jim Holm, paraphrased
from the sponsor statement:
A process called negotiated regulation making (Neg-
Reg) was authorized in statute in SLA 1998, Ch 117.
The original bill, HB 264, has a sunset date of July
1, 2003. HB 34 repeals that sunset, thus allowing the
Neg-Reg process to continue.
Negotiated regulation making is widely supported
because it makes the regulation-writing process more
applicable to reality. It allows a team of affected,
interested parties to negotiate and submit
recommendations before the regulations are published
for public review.
Most notable successes to date have been cruise ship
regulations and charitable gaming regulations, two
extremely contentious issues that were favorably
resolved using the negotiated regulation process.
Though it does involve some up-front efforts to
assemble the negotiating team, it saves far more at
the other end of the process by eliminating lawsuits
and lengthy public appeals.
Another important advantage is that the affected
industries are involved from the beginning so the
resulting regulations are far more practical,
enforceable, and business-friendly.
Passage of HB 34 before the end of the 2003
legislative session will allow this valuable Neg-Reg
process to remain in statute.
TAPE 3-20 SIDE A
10:45 am
Examples of how this process has been successfully used include
the Department of Environmental Conservation and the Department
of Revenue with cruise ship waste disposal and charitable gaming
regulations. An advantage to this process is it eliminates
public appeals and lawsuits after the regulations have been
implemented. She noted the two zero fiscal notes.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS noted Craig Tillery was available to answer
questions.
SENATOR JOHN COWDERY asked how often this was used.
CRAIG TILLERY from the Department of Law stated the negotiated
rule making has been used twice that he's aware of. It was also
used as a model with respect to non-tank vessel legislation and
regulations.
SENATOR COWDERY asked what negative impact would result if the
law were to sunset on July 1.
MR. TILLERY replied the negative impact is the law would no
longer be available. The Administration has taken no position on
the bill. The department has reviewed it and there are no legal
problems the way it is drafted. It's a rare tool but works well
in some instances and has a place in the toolbox.
SENATOR COWDERY made a motion to move HB 34 from committee with
individual recommendations and attached fiscal note. He asked
for unanimous consent. There being no objection, it was so
ordered.
HB 114-ISSUANCE OF SEARCH WARRANTS
DOUG WOOLIVER, Administrative Attorney with the Alaska Court
System, explained the bill was introduced at the request of the
Alaska Supreme Court to address a technical problem with the way
judges are allowed to accept testimony from peace officers that
are requesting a search warrant. Typically an officer fills out
an affidavit, signs it, takes it to court, and is available for
questions. The officer could also drop the affidavit with the
court and the judge could make a decision based on the
application itself. The problem arises when the judge and the
officer aren't in the same community, which is frequent in
Alaska. In circumstances where the item to be searched is in
danger of being lost or destroyed the officer may fax the
application for a search warrant and testify telephonically. In
many cases that standard can't be met.
This bill adds one sentence to the law that allows a judge to
accept a faxed affidavit or telephonic testimony so the judge
can take into account the practical impact the delay would have
on the investigation. The language adds "or would interfere with
an ongoing investigation". It in no way changes all other
factors that govern the issuance of a search warrant. The bill
was drafted with input from the Department of Law, Public
Defender Agency, the Alaska Court System, and the Alaska State
Troopers.
There were no questions or comments.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked for a motion.
SENATOR JOHN COWDERY made a motion to move CSHB 114 (JUD) (title
am) from committee with the accompanying fiscal note. He asked
for unanimous consent. There being no objection, it was so
ordered.
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Gary Stevens adjourned the meeting at 11:00 am.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|