Legislature(2011 - 2012)BARNES 124
02/14/2011 03:15 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB114 | |
| HB130 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 114 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 130 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 114-OPT-OUT CHARITABLE GIVING PROGRAM
3:18:14 PM
CHAIR OLSON announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 114, "An Act relating to an opt-out charitable
giving program offered by an electric or telephone cooperative."
3:18:36 PM
JANE PIERSON, Staff, Representative Steve Thompson, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of the prime sponsor, recapped HB 114,
which was previously heard by the committee. She explained that
HB 114 would create an opt-out charitable giving program. The
program would "roundup" to the next dollar on an electric
cooperative billing. The fractional amount would be distributed
to organizations and individuals in need of charitable
donations. Individuals or organizations would apply by
application. Most cooperatives establish a separate "501 (c)
(3)" organization to oversee these monies. One issue that arose
at an earlier hearing on HB 114 was the necessity of placing
some restrictions on the opt-out charitable giving program.
3:19:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON made a motion to adopt Amendment 2,
labeled, 27-LS0424\A.4, Kane, 2/11/11, as follows:
Page 3, lines 13 - 14:
Delete "charitable donations and for no other
purpose"
Insert "the relief of poverty, distress, or other
conditions of general public concern but not for
religious organizations, political organizations,
organized labor unions, or unorganized labor unions,
or for any political purpose"
CHAIR OLSON objected for purpose of discussion.
3:19:56 PM
MS. PIERSON explained that proposed Amendment 2 would "place
some sideboards" on what the charitable funds uses. She said
the funds could be used for the relief of poverty, distress, or
other conditions of general public concern but not for religious
organizations, political organizations, organized labor unions,
or unorganized labor unions, or for any political purpose. In
response to Representative Johnson, she answered that she did
not have a definitive answer since the term "charitable" has
many definitions. She offered to work on a definition for
consideration at the next committee of referral.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he would also like "general public
concern" defined but his concern was not significant enough to
impede the progress of HB 114. However, he thought the term was
too general.
3:21:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked for the definition of an
"unorganized labor union."
MS. PIERSON said she was uncertain but she thought some labor
organizations have programs and this language would extend to
these programs.
3:22:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON described a scenario in which house
repairs were being donated. He asked whether employees of
companies would be prevented from using the funds or working on
a house if the employees were part of organized labor.
MS. PIERSON offered her belief that the intent of the bill would
be for the, the person who needs the repairs done, the
recipient, to hire anyone he/she chose to do the repairs. She
indicated this could include any member of organized or
unorganized labor since the labor organization would not be
receiving the funds. Instead, the individual or nonprofit
organization would be receiving the charity, she stated.
3:23:23 PM
CLYDE (ED) SNIFFEN, JR., Senior Assistant Attorney General,
Commercial/Fair Business Section, Civil Division (Anchorage),
Department of Law (DOL), revisited the question as whether an
individual recipient could contract with an organized labor
union or an unorganized labor union to repair the roof. He
agreed with Ms. Pierson, that the intent would be for the
recipient of the donation is the focus of this language. He
offered his belief that some restrictions would be placed on
paying labor directly but a carpenter who happened to be part of
a labor union would not likely have any restriction.
3:24:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to page 3, lines 13-14 of HB 114,
and said he thought the language referred to the purpose of the
charitable funds and not who receives the funds. He read:
"...the relief of poverty, distress, or other conditions of
general public concern but not for religious organizations,
political organizations, organization labor unions, or
unorganized labor unions, or for any political purpose." He
asked for further clarification.
MR. SNIFFEN referred to an earlier question on whether the term
"general public concern" could be defined. He offered to work
on this definition. The language was derived from AS 45.68,
which relates to charitable solicitation in Alaska. The statute
defines a charitable organization to mean an organization that
is formed for the relief of poverty, distress, or other
conditions of general public concern. He recalled other
statutes use that phrase. Unfortunately, the phrase is not
defined in any of those other statutes either. He said, "It's
kind of a moving target and we'll see if we can do better."
MR. SNIFFIN turned to the specific question as to whether
Amendment 2 would refer to the purpose of the donation or the
individual. He said he was uncertain whether it matters too
much, but he understood the concern. He related a scenario in
which GVEA wanted make a donation to the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) for the purpose of
opposing an attempt to de-unionize a particular shop. The GVEA
would be restricted from doing so as long as the purpose of the
grant is not to benefit the labor, political or religious
organization. This language would allow that to happen but he
suggested that there may be a way to focus on the purpose rather
than on the individual.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered that he was having difficulty with
the "purpose" and the "recipient" on the "same line". He was
uncertain how that would work.
3:27:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON recalled Mr. Sniffen used the term
"unorganized labor organizations" several times but the specific
language in Amendment 2 uses the term "unorganized labor
unions." He asked whether the committee should consider
altering the language.
MR. SNIFFEN related his understanding that union suggests an
organized entity. He offered his belief it might make more
sense to say "organized labor unions" or "other unorganized
labor organization" would perhaps resolve that issue. He
suggested that clarification could be worked on in the House
Judiciary Standing Committee, as well.
3:28:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON referred to an organization such as the
Associated General Contractors (AGC), which is not a union but
is an organized labor association. He reiterated such an
organization is not really a union but it is an organization.
He commented that he struggles with the meaning of that phrase.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON related a scenario in which AGC needed to
replace 20 roofs that blew off in a wind storm. He asked
whether AGC could replace the roofs under the charitable giving
program in HB 114.
MR. SNIFFEN responded that AGC is a contractor's association so
it would not likely fit the definition of a labor organization.
He identified the AGC as an affiliation of entities that have
labor organization interests. The purpose and intent of HB 114
is to allow donations for charitable giving projects for
projects such as replacing a roof on a disabled person's home.
He remarked that would not be prohibited to have the donation go
through a labor organization of some kind so long as the grant
was not to the labor organization. He offered his belief that
the funds would have to be earmarked for a specific purpose. He
related that it may make more sense to put parameters on the
definition in order to better focus on the purpose of the fund.
Then if the funds are channeled to entities it would likely be
fine so long as the purpose of the donation was met. He offered
to continue to work to improve the language.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he thought the funds should be
remitted directly to the recipient rather than to the person
receiving the repair. He reiterated that he would prefer the
process to be structured so any charitable funds would be paid
to the recipient and the person would then hire the repair
person to do the work.
MR. SNIFFEN said he did not disagree. He offered his belief
that they both have same idea.
3:32:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER remarked that he reviewed the list of
examples of recipients and thought one solution might be to
insert language, such as nonprofit businesses. He recalled the
sponsor's staff mentioning the difficulty in inserting
"charitable organization" since it may have "tentacles" but all
of the examples on the list seemed to be individual or nonprofit
organizations.
MS. PIERSON said she thought that was a good idea and offered to
work with Mr. Sniffen on specific language to address his
concern.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER referred to line 4 of proposed Amendment
2, and suggested the committee may wish to delete "unorganized
labor unions" and replace it with "other labor organizations."
MR. SNIFFEN said he thought that change makes sense. He also
thought a similar restriction to non-profit organizations was
previously considered. He said he thought the language in
Amendment to that imposes restrictions to "not for religious
organizations and political organizations" helps to clarify who
is eligible since religious organizations and political
organizations are also nonprofit organizations. He offered his
belief that the committee has given the sponsor good direction
to move forward to address the concerns.
3:35:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES asked whether proposed Amendment 2 should
be adopted or if it still needs tinkering. She said it seemed
like committee is interested in moving the bill along.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he was not opposed to moving the
bill with this amendment included since the committee is
building a public record. He said would be uncomfortable
sending this bill out without adopting Amendment 1, even though
the language was imperfect.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he was unsure which entities are
being discussed under "other labor organizations" that are not
"labor unions," especially as it pertains to rural Alaska. He
was uncertain whether the language may capture entities the
committee may not want included in the charitable giving
provisions.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked the sponsor to clarify whether
deleting the language after "labor unions" and using "or
unorganized labor unions" would serve the sponsor's purpose and
may also address Representative Seaton's concern.
MS. PIERSON answered yes.
3:38:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON made a motion to conceptually amend
Amendment 2, on line 4, of HB 114, after "organized labor
unions" to delete "or unorganized labor unions."
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected for purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON considered the suggested language change
in the conceptual amendment to Amendment 2 as "a friendly
amendment."
MR. SNIFFEN agreed that he could not come up with a solid clear
example of an unorganized labor union either. He said he did
not think the conceptual amendment to Amendment 2 would detract
from the intent of the sponsors, although he left it up to the
sponsors to decide.
3:39:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES removed her objection to the conceptual
amendment to Amendment 2. There being no further objection, the
conceptual amendment to Amendment 2 was adopted.
CHAIR OLSON lifted his objection. There being no objection,
Conceptual Amendment 2, as amended was adopted.
CHAIR OLSON, after first determining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 114.
3:41:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER made a motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 3, on page 3, line 2, to delete "but does not" and
insert "by an amount not to". He explained the bill would then
read: "program that rounds the monthly bill of a member to the
next whole dollar amount by an amount not to exceed 99 cents a
month."
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER clarified that it was "a grammar thing"
since the subject is "a program that" "rounds the monthly bill"
"but does not exceed." He suspected a monthly bill would exceed
99 cents a month.
3:42:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER explained that Conceptual Amendment 3
would also have to add "up" to read, "rounds up" instead of
"rounds". He restated the bill would then read: "program that
"rounds up" the monthly bill of a member to the next whole
dollar amount by an amount not to exceed 99 cents a month." He
then restated Conceptual Amendment 3, after "member" insert "up"
then delete "but does not" and insert "by an amount not to".
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES removed her objection.
There being no further objection, Conceptual Amendment 3
adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON acknowledged Conceptual Amendment 3 as a
"friendly amendment."
3:44:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON moved to report HB 114, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying zero fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHB
114(L&C) was reported from the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB130 Fiscal Note-DPS-FLS-02-05-11.pdf |
HL&C 2/14/2011 3:15:00 PM |
HB 130 |
| HB130 Supporting Documents - Letter Alaska HBA 2-1-2011.pdf |
HL&C 2/14/2011 3:15:00 PM |
HB 130 |
| HB130 Supporting Documents - Letter AK Assoc of Realtors 2-4-2011.pdf |
HL&C 2/14/2011 3:15:00 PM |
HB 130 |
| HB130 Supporting Documents - Summary of HB 130 Effects.pdf |
HL&C 2/14/2011 3:15:00 PM |
HB 130 |
| HB130 Supporting Documents Letter AFCA 2-14-2011.pdf |
HL&C 2/14/2011 3:15:00 PM |
HB 130 |