Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/29/2003 01:42 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 STANDING COMMITTEE
April 29, 2003
1:42 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Gary Stevens, Chair
Senator John Cowdery, Vice Chair
Senator Fred Dyson
Senator Gretchen Guess
Senator Lyman Hoffman
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 14 am
"An Act relating to an absence from the state while providing
care for a terminally ill family member for purposes of
determining eligibility for a permanent fund dividend; and
providing for an effective date."
HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 45
"An Act adding a second verse to the official Alaska state
song."
SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 7
Proposing an amendment to the Uniform Rules of the Alaska State
Legislature relating to executive sessions of legislative
bodies; and providing for an effective date for the amendment.
MOVED HCR 7 OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 145
"An Act relating to reemployment of and benefits for retired
teachers or employees, including those who participated in
retirement incentive programs, and to the employment as teachers
of members of the public employees' retirement system who
participated in a retirement incentive program; and providing
for an effective date."
MOVED CSSB 145(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 63
"An Act relating to municipal property taxation in annexed and
detached areas; and providing for an effective date."
MOVED CSSB 63 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
HB 14 - No previous action to record.
HCR 7 - No previous action to record.
SB 145 - No previous action to record.
SB 63 - See Community and Regional Affairs minutes dated 2/26/03
and State Affairs minutes dated 4/24/03.
WITNESS REGISTER
Jim Pound
Staff to Representative Hugh Fate
Alaska State Capitol, Room 128
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 14
Representative Bruce Weyhrauch
Alaska State Capitol, Room 102
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor HCR 7
Tamara Cook
Legislative Affairs Agency
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HCR 7
Debbie Ossiander
President, Association of Alaska School Boards
316 W 11th St.
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 145
Fred Esposito
Director, Alaska Vocational Technical Center (AVTEC)
Department of Education &
Early Development
th
801 W 10 St.
Juneau, AK 99801-1894
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 145
Kevin Sweeney
Legislative Liaison
Department of Education &
Early Development
th
801 W 10 St.
Juneau, AK 99801-1894
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 145
Tim Steele
Vice President, Anchorage School Board
P.O. Box 196614
Anchorage, AK 99519-6614
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 145
Guy Bell
Director, Division of Retirement and Benefits
Department of Administration
PO Box 110200
Juneau, AK 99811-0200
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 145
Mary Jackson
Staff to Senator Thomas Wagoner
Alaska State Capitol, Room 427
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 63
Dan Bockhorst
Local Boundary Commission
Department of Community & Economic Development
550 West Seventh Avenue, Suite
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-3510
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 63
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-23, SIDE A
CHAIR GARY STEVENS called the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:42 p.m. Present were Senators
Dyson, Cowdery, Guess, Hoffman and Chair Gary Stevens.
The first order of business was HB 14.
HB 14-PERMANENT FUND ALLOWABLE ABSENCES
JIM POUND, staff to Representative Hugh Fate, paraphrased from
the sponsor statement.
HB 14 makes changes to existing statute and defines
the legal definition of family. Once passed into law,
the Permanent Fund Division of the Department of
Revenue will be able to clearly consider the family
through first cousins for the purpose of granting this
exemption.
By changing the language, a family member will be able
to provide care for a terminally ill family member in
their final days without being penalized by the state.
This expansion of existing language defines a legal
family member as related through blood to the second
degree, under the rules of canon law, marriage,
adoption, or guardianship.
This addition to existing language will show Alaskans
that we do believe the family is more than one or two
generations. The family is still the strongest single
unit that makes this state great, and we as
legislators need to acknowledge that by passing HB 14.
He noted there were several proposed amendments. When the House
amended the bill on the floor, the definition of family became
too broad. The amendments address that oversight.
SENATOR COWDERY asked if the definition of family member
included those involved in same-sex marriages and long-term non-
marriage relationships.
MR. POUND replied same-sex marriages are specifically not
included.
SENATOR COWDERY asked how divorced individuals would be
affected.
MR. POUND explained the bill uses canon law to define family,
which would affect members of a divorced family.
SENATOR COWDERY questioned the number of people that might be
impacted.
MR. POUND acknowledged he didn't know.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS informed members the discussion centered on
version \A.A and the proposed amendment was \AA.1.
SENATOR FRED DYSON expressed bewilderment.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS pointed to page 3, lines 3-5 and read,
"'family member' means a person legally related to the
individual through blood to the second degree of kindred
computed under the rules of canon law, marriage, adoption, or
guardianship." The proposed amendment would delete "marriage,
adoption, or guardianship" and insert "through blood, marriage,
or adoption" on line 5. It would also delete "blood" on page 3,
line 4 and insert "guardianship or,".
MR. POUND agreed.
SENATOR HOFFMAN noted that the phrase on page 2, line 7 "parent,
spouse, sibling, child, or stepchild;" was replaced with "family
member;" but wasn't changed in paragraph (6).
MR. POUND acknowledged it was an oversight.
SENATOR DYSON questioned whether there was discussion about
grandparents.
MR. POUND said the original bill was directed strictly toward
grandparents and during the House floor debate they expanded the
term to "family" in the event the definition of a family was
changed in the future.
SENATOR DYSON asked if it was Mr. Pound's understanding that
grandparents are included as family members through blood
relation to the second degree.
MR. POUND said second degree, without the amendments, stretches
to second cousin, which is part of the reason for the proposed
amendments. That expansion is greater than intended, but
grandparents are certainly included as written.
SENATOR DYSON asked how the amendment included grandparents.
MR. POUND replied it was based on canon law and the marriage
process. The canon law definition of marriage deals primarily
with three generations of the existing family.
SENATOR DYSON asked that it be part of the record that it is
clearly understood that the canon law concept includes
grandparents and that Representative Fate and the House of
Representatives is not against grandparents.
MR. POUND assured him that was correct.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS agreed that the term "canon law" didn't make
it clear that grandparents were included.
SENATOR GRETCHEN GUESS wasn't sure why the term canon law was
used. She then asked whether second cousins were included or
excluded.
MR. POUND advised second cousins would not be included if the
amendments were adopted.
SENATOR GUESS requested an explanation for using canon law.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS said he was interested in the explanation as
well.
MR. POUND replied Representative Kerttula wanted to use the term
to define family.
SENATOR DYSON suggested holding the bill so that Representative
Kerttula could offer an explanation for using canon law.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS agreed he wasn't comfortable passing the bill
from committee at that time.
SENATOR COWDERY had no objection.
SENATOR HOFFMAN asked that Mr. Pound also find out how many
people were affected currently and the projected number if the
bill were to pass. In addition, he asked how many members from
one family could qualify under the providing care provision.
MR. POUND pointed out page 2, line 11 makes it clear just one
person would qualify.
SENATOR GUESS said it wasn't clear that just one family member
could qualify.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS pointed out the bill didn't limit the number
of family members who could qualify to travel.
SENATOR GUESS added she would be interested to learn why
paragraph (7) was changed while (6) and (8) were not.
MR. POUND acknowledged it was an oversight due to the House
floor amendments.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS recapped the requested changes and held HB 14
in committee.
HCR 7-UNIFORM RULES: EXECUTIVE SESSIONS
REPRESENTATIVE BRUCE WEYHRAUCH, bill sponsor, reported the bill
was drafted on behalf of the House State Affairs Committee after
they conducted hearings on homeland security for the State of
Alaska. The commissioners of veterans and military affairs and
public safety testified in a public forum on matters that did
not interfere with any security issues. After that, he asked the
committee go into executive session excluding the public and
staff so the commissioners could more fully disclose areas of
homeland security that may have led to the need for additional
policy discussions, legislation, or appropriations.
As a result of September 11, homeland security has become a
significant part of what legislators do as government policy
makers. However, difficulties arose when he asked Legislative
Legal and Research Services to invoke certain statutory
provisions so that the committee could go into executive session
to discuss homeland security. HCR 7 amends the Uniform Rules to
allow a legislative body to call an executive session, and
specifically exclude the public, to discuss matters that might
affect the security of the state or nation or a government unit
or agency. The House Rules Committee amended the bill to include
the adjective "adversely" to make it clear that adverse affect
is what would be discussed in those executive sessions. As a
policy matter, the Legislature wants to discuss things as openly
as possible with the public, but they must also balance that
with protecting the public on matters of security.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked Ms. Cook to discuss paragraph (3),
which refers to discussion of a matter that may, by law, be
required to be confidential and whether the current statute
already addresses the issue.
TAMARA COOK, Director of Legislative Legal and Research
Services, advised that lends itself to consideration of
information such as tax records that an agency may possess. That
type of material is listed in statute as confidential, but
information an agency might possess that relates to security
matters wouldn't necessarily be outlined as such in statute.
That is partly because individual offices may be struggling with
pragmatic and practical decisions about how to keep their office
physically safe and yet there is no specific statute that says
that type of concern is confidential information. In fact, it
would be difficult to draft a statute that would take into
account all the possibilities that could arise when considering
a security matter.
SENATOR COWDERY asked if there were parameters to determine
allowable security for calling an executive session.
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH replied it would depend on the
expertise and concerns raised by those providing information to
the committee. Information from an executive session could
always be opened to the public at a later time if it was
determined that was in the public's best interest. This is
cutting new ground and there is no clear answer.
SENATOR DYSON said, "You're right on the mark and I'm surprised
that we didn't have this provision and I commend you for doing
it." He asked if there had been any significant criticism.
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH said any criticism was philosophic in
nature. It's a balancing act between the public's right to know
and the public's need to be protected and is not to be used to
evade the natural and necessary public watchfulness on what is
happening in government.
Paragraph (3) covers not just tax records, but also personnel
matters that are required, by law, to be confidential. Many Rule
22 issues are the types of thing Legislative Council discovers
when it discusses personnel evaluations or litigation, which
makes it more likely that they would invoke that protection as
opposed to a legislative committee. Paragraph (4) is an uncommon
type of invocation, but there was nothing in statute that made
it easy to enter executive session to address homeland security
issues.
SENATOR DYSON said he agreed with the bill and would like to
move it whenever the Chair was ready to entertain a motion.
SENATOR GRETCHEN GUESS agreed with Senator Dyson, but wanted to
know who would decide on entering executive session.
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH replied the House State Affairs
Committee went into executive session twice to discuss homeland
security after talking with each of the commissioners and each
member of the committee. After each executive session, he
publicly reported what the committee was doing and why.
SENATOR GUESS appreciated that approach, but asked Ms. Cook if a
specific process would be outlined if the bill were to pass.
MS. COOK replied Representative Weyhrauch pointed out that the
three existing provisions for going into executive session would
depend on the good faith and responsible judgment of the
particular legislative body. By the nature of going into
executive session, there is no way for an outside person to
challenge the decision.
She reminded members that when a legislative body goes into
executive session, it does not have the power to exclude other
legislators. Additionally, a group of legislators' peers could
make a collective judgment if they determine a committee was
abusing the power to go into executive session.
SENATOR COWDERY asked whether a caucus was exempt as an
executive session.
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH made it clear the intent of HCR 7 was
not for going into caucus.
SENATOR COWDERY asked whether there had ever been any court
challenges to a provision of this type.
MS. COOK explained The League of Women Voters sued to question
whether AS 44.62.310 was violated when the Senate Finance
Committee met privately to craft an alternative budget in the
last days of a legislative session. Ultimately, a budget was
adopted, which was the result of that meeting. The meeting was
not a caucus. In that suit, the lower court determined a
violation had occurred in the open meeting statute. They held
the public enjoyed the constitutional right to access committee
meetings. On appeal, the Alaska State Supreme Court said there
is no constitutional requirement that the Legislature open any
of its proceedings to the public. Furthermore, the statute,
which did apply to the Legislature, clearly applied to the
Finance Committee and could not be enforced by a court against
the Legislature itself. As a result of the holding, the
Legislature has elected to enact, in its ethics provision, a
requirement that meetings of the Legislature be held according
to open meetings principles.
At this time, it is a violation of the Legislative Ethics Act
for a legislative committee to be held in a way that would
obstruct public access. She advised the Uniform Rules probably
have no application to caucuses at all. A caucus has been
determined to be a private organization and is not a legislative
body in the same sense a committee would be. Up until now,
caucuses have established their own rules with respect to their
meetings being public or private.
4:10 p.m.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS said amending Rule 22, as described, would
say that a legislative body may call an executive session for
security issues and that a legislative body would include any
subdivision of the Alaska State Legislature.
MS. COOK agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH stated that was the intent.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS expressed amazement this wasn't already in
place, but mused it wasn't an issue just a short time ago.
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH replied that although it's discouraging
to think about, there is a need.
SENATOR DYSON made a motion to move HCR 7 from committee with
individual recommendations and zero fiscal note. There being no
objection, it was so ordered.
SB 145-REEMPLOYMENT OF RETIRED TEACHERS
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked for a motion to adopt the proposed
committee substitute (CS) as the working document.
SENATOR COWDERY made a motion to adopt CSSB 145 \H version as
the working document.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS reported it was two years ago that the
Legislature allowed school districts to rehire retired teachers.
SB 145 would provide school districts with an additional tool,
which would allow them to reemploy teachers who had retired
through the Retirement Incentive Program (RIP). This would also
allow the Department of Education and Early Development (DEED)
and the Department of Labor (DOL) to hire regular and RIP
retired teachers for their schools and programs such as Mount
Edgecumbe and the Alaska Vocational Technical Center. In
addition, DEED could hire a RIP retiree as a commissioner.
Those who RIPed and want to return to work are required to pay a
penalty of 110 percent of the benefit that they received on
retirement, which has been a great disincentive to return to
teaching. Because the full cost of RIP retirements were paid at
the time of retirement, there is no actuarial impact on either
PERS or TRS and therefore the bill has a zero fiscal note.
SENATOR COWDERY asked if teachers were unavailable or unwilling
to teach in certain areas of the state.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS explained there is a real teacher shortage in
many areas of the state and, although the bill wouldn't force
districts to rehire retired teachers, it would give them that
option. He reminded members that RIPs were no longer available
to teachers and, as a school board president during the time
they were offered, he regretted having agreed to the
unsuccessful program.
DEBBIE OSSIANDER, President of the Association of Alaska School
Boards, spoke on behalf of the association, which is comprised
of school board members across the state. Because salaries in
Alaska are no longer as competitive as they used to be and
training in state is inadequate and bureaucratic mandates have
caused special education teachers to drop their certification,
it has become increasingly difficult to draw teachers and
administrators to remote areas of the state. The ability to
rehire teachers that have left the profession would help to
alleviate those difficulties.
The association strongly supports the bill and has followed,
with great interest, the new Administration's difficulties
associated with finding a new commissioner. This bill would help
school districts fill teaching and administrative positions.
SENATOR COWDERY asked how many teachers have taken advantage of
a RIP.
MS. OSSIANDER replied she was from Anchorage and that district
did not participate in state RIPs.
FRED ESPOSITO, Director of the Alaska Vocational Technical
Center (AVTEC), reported that they deliver quality technical
training to over 1,800 Alaskans every year. To do so, they rely
on the ability to hire highly competent technical instructors,
which has become increasingly difficult. SB 145 is important to
the center and they support it fully.
KEVIN SWEENEY, legislative liaison with DEED, pointed out the
bill not only allows RIP participants to return to work, but
also clarifies the law the Legislature passed in 2001. This
allowed school districts and REAAs to hire retired teachers who
hadn't RIPed and they could continue to receive their benefit.
Due to an oversight when that bill was passed, the DEED was not
given this ability even though they run schools in the state.
The Teaching and Learning Support Division has positions that
have been unfilled for more than a year and this bill would
allow them to take advantage of the incentive to get both RIP
and non-RIP teachers to return to the profession and perhaps
fill some of those positions.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS thanked Mr. Sweeney for clarifying that DEED
was left out of the 2001 legislation.
TAPE 03-23, SIDE B
4:30 p.m.
TIM STEELE, Vice-President of the Anchorage School Board,
testified in support of SB 145. The district has experienced
difficulty in drawing teachers back to work and he reported that
certain specialty positions are particularly difficult to fill.
He noted that while the No Child Left Behind Act has
requirements for highly qualified teachers in every subject
area, it's the experienced teachers that were previously
encouraged to leave as a cost saving measure. Although Anchorage
didn't participate in the state RIP, they support the bill,
which would encourage the return of experienced teachers.
GUY BELL, Director of Retirement and Benefits, reported the
department submitted a zero fiscal note because the legislation
has no actuarial impact on the retirement funds. In response to
previous questions, he advised there are 862 RIP retirees in the
state and 568 outside the state, all of whom could potentially
return to teaching. They have received just 84 TRS waivers from
school districts since its inception more than two years ago so
it's used on a very limited basis.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked him to clarify that retired teachers
could return to substitute teach as well.
MR. BELL agreed that was correct. A retired teacher could return
full time, part time, or as a substitute teacher.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked what the latitude would be regarding
the agreement the district would come to with the returning
RIPed teacher and also for confirmation that the returning
teacher would not be accruing additional retirement benefits.
MR. BELL replied the person would return under the waiver
provision, which means they continue to receive their retirement
benefit and would not accrue another retirement benefit during
the return to employment.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked about tenure and salary.
MR. BELL advised that would be between the school district and
the employee; the retirement system does not enter into those
discussions.
SENATOR COWDERY made a motion to move SB 145 from committee with
individual recommendations and attached zero fiscal note. There
being no objection, it was so ordered.
SB 63-MUNICIPAL ANNEXATIONS AND DETACHMENTS
MARY JACKSON, staff to Senator Thomas Wagoner, reported the
committee substitute (CS) \H version was adopted during the
previous hearing. At that time, the Local Boundary Commission
(LBC) expressed concern regarding intent language. Because
intent language does not have the force of law, Senator Wagoner
directed her to have Legislative Legal and Research Services
draft an amendment that would be placed into statute. The LBC
has since reviewed and approved the amendment and Mr. Bockhorst
would speak to the amendment.
DAN BOCKHORST, staff to the LBC, said the commission endorsed
the CS adopted during the previous hearing, but they were
concerned it might be construed to limit the commission's
discretion to define reasonable and appropriate transition
measures. Because of this concern, they asked for clear language
indicating they would not be so limited.
In addition to annexations, detachments and incorporations, the
LBC deals with four other issues. The concern was that if the
transition measures were addressed with regard to just the three
issues listed above, it might be construed that there was some
intent to erode the commission's authority on decision making
with regard to the other four issues. The amendment addresses
their concern and they endorse the measure.
4:40 p.m.
MS. JACKSON pointed out page 1, line 1 changed the title making
it purposefully tight.
SENATOR COWDERY made a motion to adopt amendment 1 dated 4/29/03
Cook \H.3 version. There was no objection.
SENATOR GUESS made a motion to move CSSB 63(STA) from committee
with individual recommendations and zero fiscal note. 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 4:45 pm.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|