Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/06/1997 01:33 PM Senate TRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
March 6, 1997
1:33 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Jerry Ward, Chairman
Senator Gary Wilken, Vice Chairman
Senator Lyda Green
Senator Rick Halford
Senator Georgianna Lincoln
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present.
OTHER MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Robin Taylor
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 21
"An Act relating to ferries and ferry terminals, establishing the
Alaska Marine Highway Authority, and relating to maintenance of
state marine vessels; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSSB 21(TRA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
Confirmation Hearings for the Alaska Board of Marine Pilots:
Bernie Smith, David Stewart, Barbara Huff Tuckness
PREVIOUS SENATE ACTION
SB 21 - See Senate Transportation Committee minutes dated 2/18/97.
WITNESS REGISTER
Joe Perkins, Commissioner
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
3132 Channel Drive
Juneau, Alaska 99801-7898
POSITION STATEMENT: Stated that SB 21 moves in the wrong
direction.
Mike McMullen, Personnel Manager
Division of Personnel
Department of Administration
PO Box 110201
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0201
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed collective bargaining.
Doug Ward, Project Manager
Alaska Ship & Dry Dock
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed Amendment 1.
Joe Ambrose, Staff
Senator Taylor
State Capitol
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions.
Barbara Huff Tuckness
1912 Parkview
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Appointee for the Board of Marine Pilots.
David Stewart
500 L Street, Suite 401
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Appointee for the Board of Marine Pilots.
Bernie Smith
Tesoro Alaska Petroleum Company
PO Box 196272
Anchorage, Alaska 99519
POSITION STATEMENT: Appointee for the Board of Marine Pilots.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-6, SIDE A
SB 21 ALASKA MARINE HIGHWAY AUTHORITY
Number 001
CHAIRMAN WARD called the Senate Transportation Committee meeting to
order at 1:33 p.m. and introduced SB 21 as the first order of
business before the committee.
COMMISSIONER JOE PERKINS , Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities, read the following statements into the record:
I. THE AUTHORITY CREATES MORE PROBLEMS THAN IT SOLVES.
A. SB 21 DIMINISHES PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY.
Under the present system, the Marine Highway System management is
accountable to the public. Concerns and requests are responded to,
quickly and completely. They have to be. Elected officials are
responsible for the management of the marine highway, and elected
official have to be responsive to the public they serve. The
establishment of an authority will diminish the public
accountability of marine highway management by inserting an
appointed board between management and the people. Marine highway
management will no longer work directly for the elected governor or
for any other elected representative. Management decisions will be
made by the board, and not the governor nor the legislature. Once
appointed, board members will not be accountable to the public. A
board member may be removed only for cause. The accountability of
marine highway management to the communities they serve will be
substantially reduced. We believe this not desirable.
B. SB 21 LESSENS PUBLIC INFLUENCE ON DECISION MAKING.
Alaskan's now know who is in charge of the Marine Highway System.
When things are running well, they know who to compliment. When
things aren't going so well, they know who to blame. This bill
will change all of that. When accountability of elected officials
changes, public access to the decision making process also changes.
Although a person or community may still ask the executive director
or board of directors of the system for a schedule change or
special run, there may be little or no pressure to respond. The
manager is insulated from the effect of public pressure. We
believe Alaskans appreciate direct access to the public system that
most affect their lives, and this bill will have a substantial
negative impact on that access.
II. THE ALASKA MARINE HIGHWAY SYSTEM IS NOT BROKEN.
A. (UNRELENTING) NEGATIVE CRITICISM IS DESTRUCTIVE.
There is a lot that is right about the Marine Highway System. The
ships have a fine safety record, generally run on time, and provide
simple, economical, comfortable and reliable transportation service
to the traveling public. The state's economy receives
approximately $170 million in benefits per year from operation of
the system. Of course some mistakes are made. They are inevitable
in an operation that is as vulnerable to as many variables as is
the Marine Highway System. It is a system that has a large and
varied constituency, and everybody has an opinion as to what should
be done and how it should be operated. But overall, the system is
doing what it was designed to do - transporting people in Southeast
and Southwest in the context of an intermodal transportation
network.
Number 115
Past Legislatures have determined that the Marine Highway System is
an essential part of the state transportation system that warrants
continued and predictable state support. Many coummunities'
economies are dependent on its steadiness and stability, and the
state's tourism industry is greatly enhanced by the system. Those
advantages are evident when the whole story of the system is told.
But when only the mistakes and difficulties are discussed, when
only the negatives are emphasized, when legislative funding levels
are reduced each year and when the future of the system is under
siege, those advantages are not recognized. The perception of an
insecure future becomes a reality for employees whose lives are
intricately woven into the system's future. The perception of a
shrinking system is a source of considerable anxiety for
communities and Alaska's whole economies and way of life have
become partially dependent on the regular arrival of the ships.
The perceived unwillingness of the Legislature to commit sufficient
state resources to insure an adequate future for the system, cannot
help but undercut morale, performance, and hope of the employees
and those we serve. This has happened and it is sad.
B. SB 21 IS A BAD IDEA.
The bill sets up a layer of administration over which neither the
Governor nor the Legislature will have control. We believe that is
bad public policy. But even worse, it doesn't fix anything. There
is nothing in the bill that encourages stability or financial
support by the Legislature. There is nothing in the bill that
addresses the increasing capital needs of an aging fleet.
If there are major problems at Marine Highways, they can be
handled. One of the biggest problems that you can help relieve is
the time and energy that now is being spent controlling the damage
caused by anxiety over the future. That is a problem that you can
materially affect, by telling the whole story of this very
successful state adventure, by demonstrating your support for its
future and helping us fix the problems. The system is 35 years
old, the ships are aging, the system is running the same type of
service today it did 35 years ago - in 1976 Sitka was provided with
268 trips and in 1996 the number was 311. Today we are responding
to the challenges of shrinking funding and increasing regulatory
demands. The employees who you heard from in the last hearing are
experiencing the impacts of these dynamics. People are being
affected and jobs are being impacted. However, I believe a firm
foundation is being laid for future statewide transportation
services to include the essential Marine Highway System. Costs are
being contained, vessels are being upgraded, the services are being
used. In fact, we are now examining, with the Southeast Alaska
Mayors, the Marine Highway employees and the Legislature the
potential to dramatically change the way the system is operated and
to offer improved and expanded service. We need your support.
II. AN AUTHORITY WILL BE FURTHER ISOLATED FROM CAPITAL FUNDS.
The Marine Highway System is presently managed by DOT/PF as an
integral part of Alaska's intermodal transportation system. The
majority of the routes have been designated by Congress as part of
the National Highway System. As an operating arm of the
department, the system receives federal highway aid funds from the
department. By separating the system from DOT/PF, as an authority,
operating independently from the rest of the department, the debate
for funding the Marine Highway System capital improvements could
conceivably shift more toward the Legislature for resolution. We
will force the Marine Highway System to compete more aggressively
with, individual communities throughout the state, other DOT/PF
regions, and other agencies for its share of federal highway funds,
rather than sharing them as one component of Alaska's intermodal
transportation system.
Number 180
While the Commissioner of DOT/PF would serve on the board of
directors of this new authority, it is unrealistic to think that an
organizational component which is separate from the rest of the
agency -- and for which the commissioner no longer has primary
responsibility -- will receive the same level of consideration for
federal highway funds as it receives as a line agency within the
department.
III. THE AUTHORITY PROVIDES NO MECHANISM OR VEHICLES TO REDUCE
SUBSIDIES.
Although not expressly stated in the proposed legislation, an
implicit purpose for an authority is apparently to insulate the
Marine Highway System from inexperienced managers appointed through
the political patronage process. It should be noted, we have 16
employees with over 290 years of maritime experience who are
working in the administration and management of the system;
dedicated, experienced employees. As already noted, such
insulation also isolates the system from direct accountability from
the public. This might be acceptable if the authority was
established to run the system as a business, designed to be self-
supporting through revenues. However, this is not the case.
The Marine Highway System presently derives about 60 % of its
operating funds from revenues, with the remaining 40 % of its
operating budget appropriated from the general fund by the
Legislature. Nothing in this proposed legislation is directed
toward changing that funding relationship. The proposed authority
is not designed to be self-sufficient. It will continue to require
annual legislative appropriations for operations and capital
improvements. What then is the justification for establishing it
as a state corporation? An authority will require additional
subsidy to fund its increased overhead costs.
IV. ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS ARE LIKELY TO INCREASE.
The Marine Highway System is already and unfairly criticized for
the large size of its central office staff. However, if the Marine
Highway System is split from the rest of DOT/PF into an quasi-
independent authority, it will lose the administrative support
presently provided by the department and administrative costs for
AMHS will certainly increase. Personnel and accounting services
which are now provided in part by headquarters would fall entirely
on the authority. So would engineering services now being provided
by Southeast region. The system would be further removed from the
Federal Highway Administration. The relations with DOT/PF and FHWA
would be complicated since CFR Title 23 for the administration of
federal highway funding programs is the responsibility of the state
highway agency DOT/PF.
Separate accounting and data processing systems will almost
certainly be necessary. The authority will not be exempt from the
Executive Budget Act, State Procurement Code and other state
mandated rules and regulations.
V. AN AUTHORITY WILL NOT SOLVE THE SYSTEM'S HIGH LABOR COSTS.
Labor agreements for Marine Highway System employees are currently
negotiated and administered as a part of the state's overall labor
relations program. Although vessel employees were 10 years ahead
of their shoreside peers in collective bargaining, economic
settlements in the last two decades have been reasonably uniform
and consistent for all state employee groups.
As proposed, all employees of the authority would be placed into
the exempt service but remain subject to the terms of existing
labor agreements until their expirations. The authority is then
authorized to negotiate new labor agreements, although it is
somewhat unclear whether or not the terms of those agreements must
be consistent with those of other executive branch employees.
Since the authority's employees will be in the exempt service, they
are prohibited by bargaining regulations from remaining in the same
classified employee bargaining units from which they came. This
means adding at least four more bargaining units and contracts for
just authority staff (general government, supervisory,
confidential, and labor, trades & crafts).
Some of these units would be composed of only a handful of
employees, but each small group has the same rights to negotiate as
larger employee groups. Each requires the authority's resources to
negotiate new contracts, and each has the right to engage in a
strike if those negotiations fail. The economic leverage which
could be exerted by these small groups of employees would be
considerable. Each has the potential to shut the system down in
the event an impasse in contract negotiations result in a strike.
Number 250
VI. SUMMARY
Alaska's long-term historical experience with creating and
operating authorities and public corporations has not been entirely
positive. Consider the Alaska Power Authority, of which I was a
member. At the time of its creation, the APA was billed as the
answer to Alaska's need for cheap and abundant energy. Visions
were for hydroelectric and other power projects throughout the
state, with modern, power grids serving the majority of Alaska.
After numerous legislative changes to the authority over several
years, it was finally closed down by the Legislature as an
operational agency. The Alaska Railroad Corporation is another
good example. It was formed by the Legislature just over a decade
ago. Today, the Legislature is considering restricting the
operations or potentially selling that corporation. Could these
examples be applicable to a Marine Highway Authority? The answer
is yes as this Legislature cannot bind future legislative actions.
The proposed authority would be a move in the wrong direction as
far as transportation in Alaska is concerned. Six years ago,
Congress initiated major changes in the National Transportation
Industry with the enactment of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). "Intermodal" is the
"I" in ISTEA. The simple genius of ISTEA is its premise that
transportation choices cannot be efficiently or economically made
in isolation from one another. This concept is called
intermodalism.
A decision to invest more public money in roads, or in airports, or
in ferry vessels, requires a balancing of public policy issues that
cannot be completely balanced if one transportation mode is somehow
treated differently. Nationally, the trend is to bring modes
together to provide more efficient transportation systems. As I
travel to other states and discuss issues with my peers, it is
clear that intermodalism is not a passing fad. It is here to stay
because it just makes sense. ISTEA will be reauthorized this year
by Congress as ISTEA II.
We all recognized that the Marine Highway System cannot continue to
operate as if it were still in the 1960's. Times have changed, and
the needs of Alaska's communities and the traveling public have
changed, the transportation network along Alaska's coastline has
changed. The changes needed in the Marine Highway System may be
dramatic. However, SB 21 takes us in the wrong direction. With
the help of the Legislature, we need to work to insure that the
Marine Highway System truly functions as an integral element in a
well designed statewide transportation system. This Administration
will change and improve the system but these changes must be well
thought out and have the support of the people of Alaska. This
takes time and the worst action we can take now is to make changes
such as this bill does without thoughtful and deliberate
considerations of its short and long term consequences.
Number 308
In response to Senator Taylor, COMMISSIONER PERKINS agreed that the
Legislature did not increase the department's budget last year.
Commissioner Perkins clarified that AIDEA owes the department
money, and a small amount may have been paid. That amount would be
placed in the fund not into operations.
SENATOR TAYLOR believed that last year's budget increased by $1.3
million. The Administration made some changes regarding the cost
the department was required to share with Risk Management and the
amount of the increase in salaries out of the contracts.
COMMISSIONER PERKINS said that he based that statement on what the
department requested and what funding was actually received which
was about $75,000 less. In response to Senator Taylor,
Commissioner Perkins offered to provide last year's budget
information to the committee. In further response to Senator
Taylor, Commissioner Perkins assumed that a new group would be
required in order to handle labor negotiations.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if this would be a different organization than
now. Currently, Mr. Ayers sends memos to Mr. Boyer making
decisions regarding the politics that may impact the third floor.
Senator Taylor emphasized that process would be desirable to
change. COMMISSIONER PERKINS said that he did not know that
happens. SENATOR TAYLOR stated that he had documentation of such
which was in the Daily News.
In response to Senator Taylor, COMMISSIONER PERKINS said that the
closure of the bars was a cost issue. He did not believe that it
was an issue upon which to hold public hearings. Commissioner
Perkins stressed that the bars cost more than the revenue generated
from the bars. The people in Fairbanks and Anchorage were
subsidizing every alcoholic beverage served on every ferry, except
the Columbia. The money lost can be applied to better service.
Commissioner Perkins acknowledged that some say revenue was lost
with the closure of the bars, but in order to make a profit or
break even the cost must be contained. When costs exceed revenue,
then no matter the amount of revenue bankruptcy follows.
SENATOR TAYLOR said that would apply to the entire system from Gary
Hayden's position to anyone else's position that does not generate
revenue. Senator Taylor pointed out that the task force only
received numbers without the 40 percent subsidy within them which
is the only way in which to illustrate a loss. When the 40 percent
subsidy is included on every employee, every bar generated a profit
over cost.
COMMISSIONER PERKINS disagreed with Senator Taylor. Commissioner
Perkins did not believe the people of Alaska should subsidize
drinks in state facilities. The bars were subsidized in addition
to the 40 percent. SENATOR TAYLOR said that the bars were not
subsidized more than the 40 percent. If the 40 percent is placed
on the numbers submitted by Mr. Hayden, then every bar makes a
profit. COMMISSIONER PERKINS asked if the State of Alaska wants to
subsidize, even at the 40 percent level, liquor on a ferry.
Commissioner Perkins replied no. That is a business answer, not a
moral response.
Number 380
SENATOR TAYLOR assumed then the same would apply to food which is
also subsidized by 40 percent. COMMISSIONER PERKINS believed that
people had a right to eat on ferries. Commissioner Perkins did not
believe that alcohol was a necessity for travelling.
SENATOR TAYLOR noted that the records speak for themselves, the
numbers submitted by the department are contrary to Commissioner
Perkins' comments. The fact that the bars have been a service to
the traveling public 35 years before the present management,
indicates prior management. Further, the record reflects that the
closure of the bar was not a public process.
COMMISSIONER PERKINS pointed out that in last year's transportation
hearings bar closures were discussed. SENATOR TAYLOR interjected
that so were other issues such as the reduction in routes, but
there was no indication that a policy would be implemented without
the public process or the Legislature. Moreover, the only public
input resulted in 90 percent opposition to closure of the bars.
SENATOR GREEN recognized that there is a problem with AMHS. In the
absence of SB 21, what is being done? Where is AMHS going in the
future? Further, is it time to change the direction of the Alaska
Railroad Corporation (ARRC)?
COMMISSIONER PERKINS said that the ARRC does not receive any state
appropriations while making a profit. Commissioner Perkins
believed that the ARRC was doing well in the business world.
Placing the ARRC under the Executive Budget Act would tie the
railroad's hands. If an Alaska Marine Highway Authority is
created, what will a Legislature 10 years from now do?
Establishing an authority does not guarantee success.
With regard to what is being done with the AMHS, Commissioner
Perkins acknowledged that there is and has been for a number of
years a labor - management problem. All those, but one, who
testified at the last hearing were AMHS employees not the public.
In Commissioner Perkins' opinion, the emphasis for change begins
with unhappy employees. This requires attention. Commissioner
Perkins reiterated that the AMHS was being operated the same as 20-
30 years ago when it was created. Change in the way in which the
system is operated is necessary. Commissioner Perkins informed the
committee that there are eight proposals addressing the fate of the
Malaspina which effects the Kennicott as well as the entire system.
Therefore, the decision regarding the Malaspina will change the
AMHS. Commissioner Perkins noted that each committee member would
receive a package for comments on the future of the system.
Commissioner Perkins acknowledged that AMHS has problems, but these
problems have manifested over the long-term not just in the past
two years.
Number 479
MIKE MCMULLEN , Division of Personnel, requested that more attention
be given to collective bargaining. In 1992 the Legislature moved
some programs from the Department of Community & Regional Affairs
to the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC), the collective
bargaining confusion from that move resulted in a Supreme Court
decision. That decision in August of 1996 remanded parts of the
case back to the labor relations agency and to the Superior Court.
Five years later, the issue remains unresolved. Mr. McMullen
identified the problem as the provisions in the bill that would
give the Authority collective bargaining authority over all of its
employees. The transition is transitioning positions now in four
collective bargaining units of positions of the classified service.
As these contracts expire, the question regarding what is the new
unit in the authority and who negotiates with them is a confusing
point. The general government argument will likely be that since
the positions were perpetuated into a successor agency, the general
government already represents them. The result would be two
employers representing them with one union in a unit that crossed
two authorities. Unless that confusion is addressed by the
Legislature, the saga will continue in the courts. Mr. McMullen
noted that there is no precedent in Alaska for this, but he offered
to work with the committee if the bill is to move forward.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if Mr. McMullen had any recommendations. MIKE
MCMULLEN said that if the outcome is to have the authority be a
complete severance from the classified service and existing
bargaining units, more language could clarify the expiration of
existing contracts.
CHAIRMAN WARD asked if anyone else wanted to testify on SB 21.
SENATOR WILKEN moved the sponsor's amendment, Amendment 1.
SENATOR LINCOLN requested that Senator Taylor explain the
amendment. SENATOR TAYLOR deferred to Mr. Ward.
Number 523
DOUG WARD , Project Manager for Alaska Ship and Dry Dock, said that
the amendment is important and necessary. The amendment would
provide a complete and accurate business accounting and evaluation
of all interport costs which is essential in order to level the
playing field for Alaskan shipyards. The AMHS is the only portion
of Alaska's federal road system that can send its highway out of
state for maintenance. SB 21 would help to repatriate a larger
portion of Alaska's highway maintenance dollars to Alaska which
will place Alaskan shipyards as a viable enterprise while
diversifying the economy.
Mr. Ward explained that Amendment 1 would require that all costs of
delivering an Alaskan vessel to an outside shipyard would be
considered in the total interport cost differential. Mr. Ward
acknowledged that some believe that some of the costs are
considered to be insignificant or difficult to calculate and would
not make a difference in the overall interport process. For
example, the deferred maintenance of a vessel during its delivery
voyage to an out of state shipyard has been considered
insignificant. The crew payroll cost during a delivery voyage is
also not included in the interport differential. Mr. Ward
understood that due to the guaranteed pay periods existing with the
union contracts, these ferry employees would be paid during the
delivery voyage whether on the job or not. Mr. Ward believed that
this represented a lost opportunity cost to the state.
Competitive bid situations anticipate a number of items that may or
may not be turned on during the course of the work. Bid amounts
are typically much higher than the actual volume of work performed
during the contract period. Mr. Ward said that results in a
dilution of the interport differential when determined on the
overall bid amount which could lead to work being sent to out of
state shipyards. If a lesser anticipated contract amount were used
in the determination, the work would have stayed in the state.
SB 21 would allow Alaskan shipyards the ability to repatriate the
maximum amount of Alaskan jobs and dollars.
In response to Senator Lincoln, SENATOR TAYLOR said that the last
funding on the AMHS maintenance facility in Ketchikan was 1986. At
that time, there was legislation which attempted to mandate that
the work done on Alaskan vessels would remain in the state. That
bill was opposed by the Sheffield Administration and the
Commissioner of the AMHS. The legislation required reports be
provided to the Legislature regarding why a particular shipyard was
chosen.
TAPE 97-6, SIDE B
Number 587
Senator Taylor noted that Washington does not send any of its ships
out of state for work which is because Washington uses general
funds without mixing in federal highway funds. The federal highway
funds are used for other things and the general funds are taken
from those. Alaska mixes the federal highway funds with state
general funds for a maintenance project. When that project is put
out to bid, the lowest bid must be taken because federal funds were
included. That legislation had a five year sunset which is now in
its third sunset. The amendment is necessary in order to provide
some direction for the authority regarding where the boats will be
worked on. Senator Taylor stressed the need for this amendment to
keep these boats in state.
SENATOR GREEN asked if this was standard language in the amendment.
SENATOR TAYLOR replied yes, and noted that the language is actually
weaker.
CHAIRMAN WARD asked if anyone objected to the adoption of Amendment
1. Without objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. Chairman Ward
inquired as to the pleasure of the committee.
In response to Senator Lincoln, CHAIRMAN WARD said that he intende
to report the bill out of committee today.
SENATOR LINCOLN referred to page 12 when she indicated that she was
unsure as to the language that would address the Division of
Personnel's concern regarding the collective bargaining agreement.
Senator Lincoln assumed that the division would present some
language to the next committee of referral, State Affairs.
CHAIRMAN WARD said that Mr. McMullen shook his head indicating that
he would provide language in the State Affairs Committee.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked where is the Gulf of Alaska area west of Icy
Cape. Senator Lincoln reviewed the breakdown of the board members.
Will the areas with the ferry system, Cordova, Whittier, and Valdez
also be considered for the board?
SENATOR TAYLOR said it was an arbitrary choice of numbers based on
the volume of the fleet and the location of the vessels. In
response to Senator Lincoln, Senator Taylor said that the task
force did consider where the board members would come from and to
whom they would be responsible. That was one of the
recommendations, but the specific details were not discussed.
Number 524
SENATOR LINCOLN noted that the three Senators appointed to the task
force were majority members; were all the recommendations of the
task force included in SB 21. SENATOR TAYLOR replied no, SB 21
only represents one aspect of the task force report. This
legislation was created about eight years ago and SB 21 is the
result of all the work in those eight years.
SENATOR LINCOLN referred to page 5 regarding the AMHS's ability to
acquire property; how is this different than the situation with
ARRC? SENATOR TAYLOR stressed that ARRC's single biggest asset is
its land. The AMHS only has land for limited upland purposes such
as terminals, parking lots, etc. SENATOR LINCOLN did not believe
the language was limiting to that and she cautioned what authority
was given in this area.
JOE AMBROSE , Staff to Senator Taylor, pointed out that the AMHS
Authority is nothing like the ARRC which is totally independent.
The AMHS Authority is an exclusive agency of Alaska to which all of
the Authority's assets belong.
SENATOR HALFORD asked if there was legislative confirmation of the
board members. JOE AMBROSE informed the committee that a provision
requiring legislative confirmation was requested. However, this is
an administrative/management board rather than a regulatory board
and the drafting attorney said that was not the purview of the
Legislature. In response to Senator Halford, Mr. Ambrose agreed
that if the board was given any quasi-judicial or regulatory
function, confirmation could be required.
SENATOR HALFORD suggested that a quasi-judicial or regulatory
function and a corresponding confirmation procedure be determined
for this board.
CHAIRMAN WARD inquired as to the pleasure of the committee.
Number 456
SENATOR WILKEN moved to report CSSB 21(HES) out of committee with
individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes.
SENATOR LINCOLN objected.
Upon a roll call vote, Senators Ward, Wilken, Green, and Halford
voted "Yea" and Senator Lincoln voted "Nay". Therefore,
CSSB 21(HES) was reported out of committee.
CHAIRMAN WARD announced that the Confirmation Hearings for the
Board of Marine Pilots would be the next order of business. He
asked Ms. Barbara Huff Tuckness to provide the committee with a
brief statement regarding who she was and why she wanted to be a
board member.
BARBARA HUFF TUCKNESS , Board of Marine Pilots Appointee, informed
the committee that she has been a resident of Alaska since 1972.
Ms. Tuckness valued the public and political process and said that
she would take pride in serving in the public position of the
board. Alaska's waterways provide a valuable recreational and
economical resource. Ms. Tuckness believed that the AMHS is the
life blood for the state. If confirmed, Ms. Tuckness said that she
would attempt to ensure that the best interests of the public is
served by ensuring that standards and regulations are adhered to.
Ms. Tuckness informed the committee of her background with
negotiating and conflict resolution. She expressed a commitment to
work together with the marine pilots and the shipping industry in
order to continue to achieve the safety and economic value of
Alaska's waterways. Ms. Tuckness thanked the committee and offered
to answer any questions.
Number 403
DAVID STEWART , Board of Marine Pilots Appointee, noted that he too
was being considered for a public position on the board. Mr.
Stewart has been a resident of Alaska since 1975 and is a lawyer
with experience primarily in the criminal area. He has served as
a District Court Judge in Anchorage and for a short time in the
Public Defenders Office in Fairbanks. Mr. Stewart emphasized his
belief in public service to the state. Mr. Stewart informed the
committee that he had no specific ties with the marine industry,
but noted his review of the recent Supreme Court decision involving
Marine Pilots Board litigation. Mr. Stewart thanked the committee
and offered to answer any questions.
SENATOR HALFORD acknowledged that Mr. Stewart's background was
adequate to serve on the board, however he asked Mr. Stewart why he
would want to serve. Senator Halford noted that Mr. Stewart listed
Special Counsel for the State of Alaska. DAVID STEWART explained
that he had been asked by Attorney General Cole to review the
potential for prosecution against a lawyer having contacts with
Governor Hickel's Administration. Further, Mr. Stewart had looked
into whether there were state criminal violations in the Cordova
road project. Both those have been completed and nothing is
pending for the State of Alaska. With regards to why participate,
Mr. Stewart expressed an interest in public service.
SENATOR HALFORD assumed that Mr. Stewart did not deal with matters
dealing with transportation or industry. DAVID STEWART replied no,
commercially he represented Fred Meyer. SENATOR HALFORD commended
Mr. Stewart for desiring to serve on this board.
BERNIE SMITH , Marine Pilots Board Appointee, informed the committee
that he had served on this board last year and his term expired.
He had been asked to serve again. Mr. Smith noted that he has been
the chief negotiator for Tesoro with whom he is employed for the
Southwest pilots. He represents the Southcentral Industry. Mr.
Smith believed that he had a good reputation in this area as well
as a good relationship with the shippers in Cook Inlet and Prince
Williams Sound. Mr. Stewart was happy to serve on the board and
offered to answer any questions.
SENATOR HALFORD asked if Mr. Smith served in the industry seat.
CHAIRMAN WARD replied yes.
SENATOR GREEN moved to report the confirmation packets from
committee with individual recommendations. Without objection, it
was so ordered. There being no further business before the
committee, the meeting was adjourned at 2:45 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|