Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/12/1999 03:23 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 136 - ABOLISH TOURISM MARKETING COUNCIL
Number 0087
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee's first order of business
is HB 136, "An Act relating to tourism and tourism marketing;
eliminating the Alaska Tourism Marketing Council; and providing for
an effective date." Reopening the public hearing on HB 136, the
chairman questioned whether Dave Carp via teleconference in
Anchorage or Steve Behnke in Juneau wished to testify. Both
gentlemen indicated they preferred to listen only. There being no
one else interested in testifying, the public hearing on HB 136 was
closed. Chairman Rokeberg commented some amendments new to the
chairman have been circulated, as well as the new fiscal note.
Number 0259
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG called a brief at-ease at 3:26 p.m. The
committee came back to order at 3:27 p.m.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG welcomed Representative Beth Kerttula to the
committee and also recognized the presence of Joe Balash, staff to
the bill sponsor, Representative Therriault.
Number 0287
JOE BALASH, Legislative Secretary to Representative Therriault,
Alaska State Legislature, identified himself to the committee.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed Representative Cissna would like the
chairman to mark the amendments for discussion. The chairman
proceeded to mark the amendments as follows: 1-LS0616\K.1, Cook,
4/12/99 as Amendment 1; 1-LS0616\K.2, Cook, 4/12/99 as Amendment 2;
1-LS0616\K.3, Cook, 4/12/99 as Amendment 3.
Number 0342
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, labeled
1-LS0616\K.1, Cook, 4/12/99, which read as follows:
Page 2, line 23, following "Purposes":
Insert "; report"
Page 3, following line 15:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 5. AS 44.33.119 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(b) The Department of Commerce and Economic
Development shall conduct an evaluation of the
performance of each contract entered into under AS
44.33.125(a) and determine the extent to which the
marketing campaign accomplished the purposes set
out in (a) of this section and the extent to which
the marketing campaign benefited the economy of the
state as a whole. On or before March 1 of each
fiscal year, the department shall submit to the
legislature and the governor a copy of its
evaluation, together with a recommendation
regarding the amount of state funding that should
be provided for a contract under AS 44.33.125(a)
for the next fiscal year."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 7, line 21:
Delete "Sections 1 - 7, 9, and 10"
Insert "Sections 1 - 8, 10, and 11"
Page 7. line 22:
Delete "Section 8"
Insert "Section 9"
[punctuation per provided amendment copy]
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS objected.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA indicated Amendment 1 would insert a new bill
section that would amend AS 44.33.119 by adding a new subsection.
She pointed out that the Department of Commerce and Economic
Development (DCED) would be required to evaluate the performance
under the issues discussed in Section 8, AS 44.33.125(a), on page
7 of the proposed Version K committee substitute (CS). This
addresses a number of issues that need to be covered, including
that the campaign may promote distinct segments of tourism and all
the various types of tourism the amendment should cover. While
discussing Amendment 1, Representative Cissna recognized a problem
and asked to amend the amendment. In response to the chairman's
request for explanation, Representative Cissna clarified, "What
we're talking about here is the -- determining the extent to which
the marketing campaign accomplishes the purposes set out in (a) of
this section and the extent to which the marketing campaign
benefitted the economy of the state as a whole. Thinking in terms
of the fact that ... there needs to be a benefit to the entire
industry and since it -- as testimony has been brought up, there
are many, many factions in the tourism industry and we need to ...
arrive at a balance so that the people of the state and the
communities of the state are truly served ... in this venture."
Representative Cissna identified the word "campaign" as the
amendment's problem, referring to Amendment 1's language,
"determine the extent to which the marketing campaign
accomplished". She indicated "campaign" is a non-word in statutory
language and should be replaced with "contract" which does have
statutory definitions. In response to the chairman's comment,
Representative Cissna made a motion to adopt an amendment to
Amendment 1 to replace "campaign" with "contract" in all instances
"campaign" appears in subsection (b) of Amendment 1.
Number 0620
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO objected. He pointed out that the legal
department had thoroughly gone through this. The House Special
Committee on Economic Development and Tourism (EDT) subcommittee
had examined this because of the consistency issue. Representative
Halcro indicated the language had been discussed with Tamara Cook,
Director, Division of Legal and Research Services, Legislative
Affairs Agency. Representative Halcro thought Ms. Cook would have
brought forth concerns if there was a problem. He understood that
all the inconsistencies had been addressed.
Number 0686
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG called a brief at-ease at 3:33 p.m. at
Representative Cissna's request. The committee came back to order
at 3:35 p.m.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA withdrew the amendment to Amendment 1. She
pointed out that this is the state's money and, as such, it is
inappropriate for the money to be allocated without an evaluation
mechanism. Amendment 1 spoke to that.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG requested that Ms. Fay and Ms. Lindgren both
speak to this issue.
Number 0737
GINNY FAY, Legislative Liaison and Acting Director of the Division
of Tourism, Department of Commerce and Economic Development, came
forward. Ms. Fay thought she understood the intent of Amendment 1,
but indicated she felt the department's request for funds through
the budget process each year provided some mechanism. She
indicated the department would basically only ask for something it
thinks is being used well. Ms. Fay pointed out that Amendment 1
would require a report of what has happened in a fiscal year (FY)
before that fiscal year is complete. She was unsure as to whether
this would be necessary to ensure that evaluation is occurring.
Ms. Fay stated, "We get grilled by OMB [Office of Management and
Budget, Office of the Governor] and by you all [the Alaska State
Legislature] every single year, and then we'll be grilling them
[the qualified trade association?], so ... I think this process
will be ongoing without this, and I am just concerned about the
time frames - whether or not we could effectively accomplish what
you're doing with this additional step."
Number 0836
TINA LINDGREN, Executive Director, Alaska Visitors Association
(AVA), came forward. While appreciating the intent of the
amendment, she believes the issue is already covered under the
language on page 3, line 30 [Section 5, subsection (b)(7)], "(b)
The Alaska division of tourism shall ... (7) administer and
evaluate the tourism marketing contract program under AS
44.33.125;". Ms. Lindgren also agreed with Ms. Fay that this is
being done before the fiscal year and through the budget process.
In Ms. Lindgren's opinion, more funds could always be used.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA made a motion to withdraw Amendment 1.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted Amendment 1 had been removed.
Number 0968
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA made a motion to adopt Amendment 2, labeled
1-LS0616\K.2, Cook, 4/12/99, which read as follows:
Page 4, line 18, following "department.":
Insert "The department may approve the marketing
campaign plan only if it determines that the campaign
fulfills each of the purposes listed in AS 44.33.119."
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO objected.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA explained the purpose of Amendment 2 is that
the guiding principle of the contract promotes tourism in Alaska.
This would avoid ambiguity with regard to the intent of the bill.
Number 1039
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO stated this is a good piece of legislation.
Under AS 44.33.119 there are seven clear goals that the QTA
[qualified trade association] will have. He questioned what would
happen if tourism decreased through no fault of the QTA.
Representative Halcro felt Amendment 2 was unnecessary.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG requested that Ms. Fay and Ms. Lindgren comment
on Amendment 2.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE indicated that Amendment 2 might be redundant
to the statute in general. If the purposes of the contract are
under AS 44.33.119, and with AS 44.33.125(a), which states that
before the contract is executed the plan must be approved by the
department, it seems that the department may only approve the
marketing plan if it determines the campaign fulfills each of AS
44.33.119's listed purposes. Amendment 2 would seem to restate
what is already stated.
Number 1179
MS. FAY believes that AS 44.33.119 states the purpose of the
Division of Tourism. That does not explicitly pertain to purposes
of the contract. Ms. Fay indicated that Amendment 2 would assert
that the department cannot approve the developed plan unless the
plan fulfills the purposes section. Ms. Fay expressed concern with
the language, "each of the purposes", on line 2 of Amendment 2
because there could be situations in which the contract could not
fulfill all the purposes.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented it was clear to him that Amendment 2
would require each purpose of the specifying purposes clause to be
met, therefore obligating the entire contract. The chairman noted,
"If it didn't meet all those purposes and if you have restricted
money, you couldn't even do it." He asked if Representative Cissna
wished to speak to the objections.
Number 1282
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA emphasized one of the problems is having
bills moved through the committee process in a hurried manner. She
believes that it would be an appropriate amendment to Amendment 2
if the language was changed to "fulfills purposes listed in AS
44.33.119".
MS. LINDGREN noted that the DCED has a broader goal than the
marketing contract. The broader goal of the department will
decide, in part, what goals the marketing council will fulfill.
Additionally, the department does planning, advocacy, and has other
roles. These purposes are for the Division of Tourism; Ms.
Lindgren believes it ties the division's hands if the marketing
part is required to fulfill the identical goals. Ms. Lindgren
thinks the department can better identify which goals should be
fulfilled and which will be done by advocacy and planning.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there was further discussion of
Amendment 2.
Number 1370
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA indicated there is concern that a private
organization will operate very differently than the state, and does
not have the same requirement to serve all the people of the state.
She further indicated this duty of the state to serve all Alaskans
and the use of state money are the reasons for the department's
involvement. As long as state money is being utilized, the
department has the special role of ensuring there is uniformity to
the degree possible in terms of serving the people - the tourism
industries of the state. Representative Cissna agreed that there
would be some marketing programs which would want to head towards
one market because it is very diverse. She indicated, however, the
importance that this is an entirely new program with a group not
yet in existence. Representative Cissna noted that this is an
effort to clarify the new entity as much as possible. In response
to the chairman's comment regarding procedure, Representative
Cissna moved that Amendment 2 be amended by deleting "each of the".
Amendment 2 as amended would read as follows:
Page 4, line 18, following "department.":
Insert "The department may approve the marketing
campaign plan only if it determines that the campaign
fulfills purposes listed in AS 44.33.119."
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO objected to the amendment to Amendment 2.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Rokeberg, Sanders,
Harris, Brice and Cissna voted in favor of the amendment to
Amendment 2. Representative Halcro voted against it.
Representative Murkowski was not present. Therefore, the amendment
to Amendment 2 was adopted by a vote of 5-1.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG clarified that Amendment 2 as amended was now
before the committee.
A roll call vote was taken. Representative Cissna voted in favor
of Amendment 2 as amended. Representatives Rokeberg, Halcro,
Sanders, Harris and Brice voted against it. Representative
Murkowski was not present. Therefore, Amendment 2 as amended
failed to be adopted by a vote of 1-5.
Number 1567
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA made a motion to adopt Amendment 3,
1-LS0616\K.3, Cook, 4/12/99 which read as follows:
Page 4, line 6:
Delete "campaign"
Insert "contract"
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS objected to the motion to adopt Amendment 3.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA stated the change is necessary because
"campaign" is more ambiguous than "contract" in that sentence.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted he wished to hear from Ms. Fay of the
department and Ms. Lindgren.
MS. FAY responded that the department could not support Amendment
3 since this is a critical component of the DCED's agreement with
the AVA.
MS. LINDGREN agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO suggested that the language not be changed,
indicating it had been a point of contention which was resolved by
the acceptance of "campaign".
A roll call vote was taken. Representative Cissna voted in favor
of adopting Amendment 3. Representatives Rokeberg, Halcro,
Sanders, Harris and Brice voted against it. Representative
Murkowski was not present. Therefore, Amendment 3 failed to be
adopted by a vote of 1-5.
Number 1684
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG called a brief at-ease at 3:53 p.m. The
committee came back to order at 3:54 p.m.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted Ms. Fay had been speaking about the fiscal
note.
Number 1689
MS. FAY explained that the fiscal note eliminates the three ATMC
[Alaska Tourism Marketing Council] positions and transfers the
personal services and travel to the contractual line. What is now
program receipts of the ATMC is moved off-budget because they will
no longer be collecting the industry match.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG inquired as to how the $20,000 was placed in FY
2000.
MS. FAY clarified that the $20,000 is the feasibility study
required by the Division of Personnel, Department of
Administration. There would be a net loss of six positions: three
in the Division of Tourism's Tourism Inquiries Section and three in
the ATMC. Ms. Fay indicated this work would be contracted out.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if the deletions are in the budget.
MS. FAY explained that the deletions would be a result of HB 136.
Article 13 of the "GGU Agreement" requires an analysis before a
state position can be contracted out. This cost would be covered
by the $20,000 and the analysis would be done in the year 2000
prior to the effective date.
Number 1755
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there are no other decrements because
those have been deleted in the budget document itself and are not
part of this fiscal note. The chairman indicated it was his
understanding from the bill sponsor, Representative Therriault
[Co-Chairman, House Finance Standing Committee], that money was
being added back into the fiscal note for this program.
MR. BALASH clarified the fiscal note does not reflect that aspect
of the budget process.
MS. FAY pointed out that a fiscal note is prepared according to the
specifications of the bill without accounting for what is occurring
in another area.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed the committee had an understanding of
this. He indicated he had had communication from the bill sponsor,
and referred to Mr. Balash.
MR. BALASH stated that both the division and the ATMC would be
funded through the fiscal note. Their entire budget would be
reflected in a later fiscal note.
Number 1812
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA made a motion to adopt Amendment 4, a
handwritten amendment, which read as follows:
page 3, Line 30
(7) administer and evaluate the tourism marketing
contract program under AS 44.33.125, and forward the
evaluation to the legislature;
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO objected.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA explained the amendment would add the
language ", and forward the evaluation to the legislature" to
subsection (7) on page 3, line 30. The purpose would be to further
expand the evaluation process.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked why the legislature would want this
evaluation outside of the purview in the budget and this committee.
Many items are contracted out in Alaska, and Representative Brice
does not think the evaluation of those contracts are sent to the
legislature.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated the legislature had passed a bill a few
years ago which restricted the number of reports issued to the
legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE stated the legislature chooses which reports
it wants to receive. His question is: Why would the legislature
want to justify having this evaluation sent to it?
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA indicated that bringing a private entity into
a state program is unusual and it is reasonable to provide as much
oversight as possible initially. This will obviously grow away
from the state and the state's management. Representative Cissna
mentioned the legislative audit process ["budget and audit report"]
and indicated she believes it is reasonable to require the
evaluation to be forwarded to the legislature, at least
temporarily.
Number 1944
REPRESENTATIVE BETH KERTTULA informed the committee that the EDT
subcommittee did not have much of an opportunity to work on HB 136.
She emphasized that reporting the evaluation to the legislature is
one of the smallest things that could be required. There will be
a new contract, without any contract provisions in legislation.
She indicated the need to see an evaluation, at least after the
first couple of years.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS said this seems redundant because if the
Division of Tourism is already going to evaluate the program, the
legislature has access to that information. He believes that if
there is a concern someone would notify the legislature or the
legislature would make the effort to find out itself.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO said he appreciates and understands the
intent of the amendment. However, DCED will still be very involved
with requesting money from the legislature each year and justifying
how that money is spent. Representative Halcro expressed full
confidence that Ms. Fay would bring forth any problems with the
QTA. He noted this is an agreement that was worked out between the
department and the industry. Additionally, if there is a small
segment of the tourism market which is not being addressed,
Representative Halcro thinks this will be brought to attention of
specific legislators, the department or the QTA. He indicated he
feels Amendment 4 is unnecessary because there are ample checks and
balances, including the yearly request for funding.
Number 2038
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA indicated the state is facing serious
economic problems and emphasized that tourism is Alaska's second
largest employer. She acknowledged Representative Halcro's
significant work on the legislation but she noted the legislation
never came back to the House Special Committee on Economic
Development and Tourism. Representative Cissna commented the
current committee had a short amount of time on Friday [April 9,
1999] to review the legislation; the fiscal note has just been
received. Representative Cissna recognized that the legislature
could review the reports at any time but she indicated problems
might be missed. She commented this is a reasonable request with
such a large project.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO maintained his objection.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Cissna voted in favor
of the adoption of Amendment 4. Representatives Rokeberg, Halcro,
Sanders, Harris and Brice voted against the adoption of Amendment
4. Representative Murkowski was not present. Therefore, Amendment
4 failed by a vote of 1-5.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed there were no further amendments or
discussion on HB 136.
Number 2145
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO made a motion to move CSHB 136, Version K,
out of committee with individual recommendations and the attached
fiscal note dated 4/12/99.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA objected.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Rokeberg, Brice,
Sanders, Harris and Halcro voted in favor of moving CSHB 136.
Representative Cissna voted against moving CSHB 136.
Representative Murkowski was not present. Therefore, CSHB 136(L&C)
moved out of the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee by a
vote of 5-1.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG pointed out he had received no calls over the
weekend from anyone regarding HB 136. He noted he had been happy
to hold the legislation at Representative Kerttula's request. The
chairman indicated he appreciated the work on the legislation.
Number 2226
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA thanked the chairman for his comment. She
recalled the committee had met until about 6:30 p.m. on Friday,
after Legislative Legal Services had left for the weekend.
Amendments were in to Legislative Legal Services by 8:00 a.m. this
morning.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA noted she has received contacts in
opposition to HB 136 that she will forward to the House Finance
Standing Committee.
[CSHB 136(L&C) MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|