Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 106
04/14/2005 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Alaska Air National Guard - Brigadier General | |
| HB167 | |
| HB160 | |
| HB238 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | SB 141 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 238 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 167 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 160 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 160-PUBLIC FUNDS & BALLOT PROPS/CANDIDATES 8:37:21 AM CHAIR SEATON announced that the next order of business was HOUSE BILL NO. 160, "An Act limiting the use of money of the state and its political subdivisions to affect an election." 8:37:36 AM REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE, Alaska State Legislature, introduced HB 160 as sponsor. He said the original intent of the bill is based on his opinion that the government should not spend money to try to influence elections. He indicated that, based on the concerns of a previous committee and some local governments, he "didn't want to micromanage every local level" and instead narrowed the focus to statewide propositions. 8:38:49 AM CHAIR SEATON clarified that although there is a Version F in the committee packet, the work draft presently before the committee is the committee substitute (CS) for HB 160(CRA), Version 24- LS0586\Y. 8:42:01 AM CHAIR SEATON directed attention to [page 1, lines 4-14], which read as follows: *Section 1. AS 15.13.145(a) is amended to read: (a) Except as provided in (b) and (c) of this section, each of the following may not use money held by the entity to influence the outcome of the election of a candidate to a state or municipal office or the outcome of an election concerning a state ballot proposition: (1) the state, its agencies, and its corporations; (2) the University of Alaska and its Board of Regents; (3) municipalities, school districts, and regional educational attendance areas, or another political subdivision of the state; and (4) an officer or employee of an entity identified in (1) - (3) of this subsection. CHAIR SEATON asked for confirmation that the entities listed are those that could not use the money. 8:42:54 AM BEN MULLIGAN, Staff to Representative Bill Stoltze, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Stoltze, sponsor, answered that's correct. In response to questions from the committee, he explained that there is a suggested amendment in the committee packet labeled, "24-LS0586\Y.1, Kurtz, 4/11/05," which read: Page 1, line 1: Delete "an" Insert "a state" Page 2 line 1 - 17: Delete all material and insert: "* Sec. 2. AS 15.13.145(b) is amended to read: (b) Money held by an entity identified in (a)(3) [(a)(1) - (3)] of this section may be used to influence the outcome of a municipal [AN] election concerning a ballot proposition or question, but only if the funds have been specifically appropriated for that purpose by [A STATE LAW OR] a municipal ordinance. * Sec. 3. AS 15.13.145(c) is amended to read: (c) Money held by (1) the division of elections or a municipal election official [AN ENTITY IDENTIFIED IN (a)(1) - (3) OF THIS SECTION] may be used (A) [(1)] to disseminate information about the time and place of an election and to hold an election; or (B) [(2)] to provide the public with the information described in AS 15.58.020; (2) a municipality, school district, regional educational attendance area, or another political subdivision of the state may be used to provide the public with nonpartisan information about a ballot proposition or question other than a state ballot proposition or question or about all the candidates seeking election to a particular [PUBLIC] office." 8:45:35 AM REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS stated, "When I look at this, it kind of brings to mind that maybe this is a backdoor attempt to get around the [Frustrated Responsible Alaskans Needing Knowledge (FRANK)] Initiative." He reviewed that the FRANK Initiative requires the government to notify the people of the total cost of any proposed capital move, and "this would prohibit them from doing that." 8:46:06 AM CHAIR SEATON responded, "Knowing the sponsor, I would doubt that was his intent." 8:46:24 AM REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE said he thinks he supports the FRANK Initiative enforcement more than the people of Juneau do, because "they have a selective enforcement of the FRANK Initiative," while he wants it to apply to all expenses on any capital. He stated, "The crux of the FRANK Initiative is that the public has the right to vote on the cost of the relocation of the capital, and I don't dispute that. ... That's a right that the public has demanded twice at the ballot box." 8:46:43 AM REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS replied that the way he reads HB 160, the government would "not be allowed to give them that cost so that they could make an intelligent decision." 8:47:01 AM REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE said the government could provide the cost in a public document. He said, "I think it's going to be available to the public .... I think the press will deliver it. I think it would still be allowed to be printed right in the ballot statement; that's very explicit in our language." Representative Stoltze respectfully disagreed that [HB 160] would have any bearing on the Frank Initiative. 8:48:24 AM REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS remarked that the City of Fairbanks held an election some years ago to sell its water utility and phone company. The vote was supported by the people of Fairbanks and the result has been the significant public employees' retirement system (PERS) deficit, which is up to $89 million and growing. He said a lot of money was spent by the City of Fairbanks advocating the sale of those assets. He asked if there is a limit on how much a school system or municipality can spend in representing their point of view and whether they can outspend the private sector. 8:49:54 AM REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE replied that if they pass a local ordinance, there's no limit. He said he still has a fundamental philosophical problem with the government's spending money to tell the people how they should vote. He offered further details. 8:51:19 AM CHAIR SEATON mentioned a statewide bond issue regarding rural school construction and a "70-30 bond debt reimbursement by municipalities." He questioned how [HB 160] would affect that statewide bond proposition, and who could or could not use funds to campaign for it. He clarified that he is trying to figure out whether, if there is a statewide initiative that impacts a municipality, the bill would prevent that municipality from communicating its concerns with its citizens through campaigning. 8:53:30 AM REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE replied that he's never known local officials to be shy about sharing their opinions. He said he thinks the appropriate measure is to form a political action committee or advocacy group. 8:54:13 AM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said she is concerned about the bill. She offered an example of a public affairs official of a museum who wants to advocate for museum expansion because he/she believes to do so would be in the best interest of the community. She said under HB 160, that public affairs official would be prohibited from actively working toward passage of legislation that would improve the museum. 8:54:47 AM REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE said he respectfully disagrees. He said, "I think you would be prohibited from acting in the capacity as the museum director during the work hours, if it's clearly spending public funds, but I don't think you check your First Amendment rights at the door. And I think that's been clearly upheld." 8:55:16 AM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER clarified that she is asking about a situation in which it's the job of the museum official to ensure that the museum gets all the funding it needs, for example, in order to serve its function in the community. 8:56:15 AM REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE responded that that may be construed as a use of resources if that official is on the state payroll or actively promoting the passage of a statewide bond proposition. He said he would "get that clarified." 8:57:13 AM REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS indicated that he did not initially like the bill, but then he read "vigorous opposition from officials." He said, "It makes me nervous when elected officials get an unfair megaphone compared to the private sector to try and dictate what the private sector should be doing." He stated that he's not certain how he would vote for this issue on the House floor, but he said he believes he supports the notion that the legislature should be discussing how public money is spent "to affect the outcomes of these things." He asked why there is so much opposition from elected officials in small communities. 8:58:12 AM REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE said, "I think part of it is [the Alaska Municipal League (AML)] has been on the phone for the last week and saying, 'This is going to prevent you from talking about a local school bond.' I think there's been a lot of bad faith misrepresentation, with all due respect, because I've confirmed some of that through conversations." 8:58:28 AM CHAIR SEATON interjected that he wants to make sure the conversation remains focused on the bill rather than on other people's actions. 8:58:44 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his understanding that a municipal government can hold money from at least the following four sources: money from it's own tax base or revenue source; money from the state; money from federal government; and money from other sources. He offered examples. He stated that the bill seems to limit the municipality's ability to use money from any source, not just state money, and he questioned the constitutionality of doing so. He offered further details. He clarified that his constitutional question relates to free speech, to the supremacy clause in the case of the federal constitution, and to the inherent powers of a municipality. CHAIR SEATON recommended a legal opinion be sought from Legislative Legal and Research Services and take up the issue in future committee discussion. 9:02:40 AM CAROL COMEAU, Superintendent, Anchorage School District, testifying on behalf of the district, said she is pleased that Version Y will allow municipalities and school districts to "continue to educate the public." She stated that a superintendent and his/her staff cannot advocate and must give facts. She said she thinks it's the obligation [of the superintendent's office] to give the public enough information if, for example, the community is being asked to support a school bond that will impact taxes. She noted that the school board is allowed to advocate. She stated, "We believe we've been very upfront and honest and heavily scrutinized by everybody about what we're saying and what our information is." She said she believes that the public is informed when money spent is part of the budget. 9:05:40 AM MS. COMEAU said she took personal leave as superintendent any time she worked on campaigning for Proposition C. and the district did not contribute to the campaign. She offered further details. She said she is happy to work with the committee on HB 160. 9:08:02 AM MS. COMEAU, in response to a question from Representative Gardner, she said she believes that Version Y would allow [the Anchorage School District] to "continue doing what we've been doing," but she said she has not seen the suggested amendment. 9:08:13 AM MR. MULLIGAN, in response to a request from Chair Seaton, offered his understanding of what the suggested amendment would do. 9:08:58 AM MS. COMEAU said that based on Mr. Mulligan's understanding, [the district] would be supportive of "this." 9:09:36 AM RON LONG, testifying on behalf of himself, said he has only just seen Version Y, but is encouraged by the testimony he has heard thus far. He explained that the original bill version had caused him concern. He stated that he is not part of any good- or bad-faith effort to overturn anyone's right "to influence anybody about anything," but he believes that there is "a large gap between informing people of the time and place of an election and telling people how to vote." Somewhere within that gap, he continued, lies factual information that voters reasonably look to their elected officials to provide. He offered some examples. He continued: If we take away that gap and conclude that there's nothing left beyond time and place that's not telling people how to vote, then we leave people looking for their facts that will form the basis of their vote from the coffee shop, from letters to the editor, from the newspapers - whom of course we know wouldn't print it if it wasn't true. I think the existing system is working pretty well. The consequences are pretty straightforward and not usually pleasant for anyone - whether they're state or local - that abuses the system as it exists. ... It's not plausible to me to conclude that everyone in local ... or state government is incapable of acting responsibly within the existing law, and this is more fixed than I think is needed for some of the abuses that may have occurred somewhere around the state. ... I'm accepting on good faith that Y.1 will address the concerns of other local officials like myself who feel that we need to fairly represents some factual evidence to the public so that they can make an informed decision, without stepping over the line and telling them how to vote. 9:13:15 AM TOM BOEDEKER, City Manager, City of Soldotna, Alaska, expressed concerns with the scope of bill. He stated one concern is that the bill "goes way beyond advocacy; it limits the type of information that can be distributed to time and place ...." He mentioned the state ballot proposition, which he said often affects municipalities. He said his job is to inform the city council and the citizens of Soldotna, and [HB 160] would put him in the position of saying, "I can't give you that information, because it could be viewed as information beyond time and place of the election." He predicted that that kind of restriction would cost him his job. He stated that he understands the issues the sponsor has regarding advocacy of outcomes, but he said the bill goes well beyond that and is "much more than is needed to solve the problem." 9:15:40 AM REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS asked Mr. Boedeker if he thinks there are a lot of people in his municipality who look to the local government to provide "information of this kind" to them prior to an election. 9:16:04 AM MR. BOEDEKER answered yes. He said in almost every instance where a proposition could affect the municipality, he has been asked to speak at the Chamber of Commerce and before various groups in the community to explain the pros and cons of the issue. He concluded, "This occurs on a regular basis in a community like Soldotna, and I think in many other communities." 9:16:34 AM BROOKE MILES, Executive Director, Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC), stated that APOC has not taken a position on HB 160. Notwithstanding that, she suggested that she could illustrate how the proposed legislation would change current law. Regarding the suggested amendment, she said it "would go a far way to clarify ... what the sponsor is intending to do here." 9:17:43 AM MS. MILES reviewed that under the current campaign disclosure law, municipalities and the state are restricted from ever using funds to advocate on behalf of a candidate and from using them on behalf of ballot propositions unless those funds are specifically appropriated by a municipal ordinance or by state law. She said it happened last year that when agencies came before the legislature asking for specific appropriations to advocate on behalf of a potential ballot question, they were denied. However, different municipalities have approved school board advocacy on behalf of school bonds. MS. MILES directed attention to page 2, lines 4-7, which she noted is language that was removed from Version Y [shown in brackets and capitalized] but would be reinserted with the suggested amendment, Y.1. That language [with the beginning of the sentence from line 2] read: (b) Money held by an entity identified in (a)(1)-(3) of this section may be used to disseminate information about the time and place of an election [INFLUENCE THE OUTCOME OF AN ELECTION CONCERNING A BALLOT PROPOSITION OR QUESTION, BUT ONLY IF THE FUNDS HAVE BEEN SPECIFICALLY APPROPRIATED FOR THAT PURPOSE BY A STATE LAW OR A MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE]. MS. MILES indicated her belief that APOC would support the language [being added back]. 9:19:18 AM MS. MILES, regarding the question of public employees "taking action" during their regular duties, noted that there is a current law that provides that in the absence of a specific appropriation, those entities listed [on page 1, subsection (a), paragraphs (1)-(4)] may use money held by "the entity" to communicate about a ballot proposition or question if the communication is made in the usual and customary performance of the officer's or employee's duties. For example, she said if [Mr. Boedeker], City Manager, Soldotna, routinely attends meetings where he provides information and speaks to questions that are on the ballot, that would not be a violation of law. 9:20:41 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that in the suggested amendment there would still be a prohibition of an appropriation by a subsequent state legislature. He asked Ms. Miles if she could comment regarding the constitutionality of the current legislature's limiting the ability of a future legislature to appropriate. 9:21:52 AM CHAIR SEATON suggested that that opinion could be asked of Legislative Legal and Research Services. 9:22:14 AM REPRESENTATIVE LYNN recalled that he had, during his campaign, sent out what he thought were political advocacy "mailers," but suggested that they could have been called educational. He questioned where the line is drawn. He concluded, "It seems to me that the whole thing has become rather disingenuous." 9:23:33 AM MS. MILES responded that there are major differences in the rules that regulate how a candidate conducts his/her campaign and how the campaigns for ballot issues are conducted. For example, she said the law has no restriction on who can contribute to a ballot issue or question. Furthermore, there is not restriction on the amount that is contributed. She added, "And as you all are very much aware, that is not the situation with respect to candidate campaign." Ms. Miles offered the example that sometimes the PTA might take a poll of all candidates and then publish that poll in the paper, which she said would be just informational. She stated, "But ... basically everything that's sent by a candidate's campaign is viewed to be in support of that candidate's candidacy." 9:25:22 AM MS. MILES, in response to a question from Representative Gardner, said although she has not had much time to study this legislation, she doesn't think that it would change "the area that was carved out by regulation to protect the elected or appointed officials' rights of free speech." 9:25:53 AM ANNE MARIE HOLEN, Staff, City Manager's Office, Homer, Alaska, testified on behalf of the City Manager in opposition to HB 160. Ms. Holen reminded the committee that municipalities around the state have been hit hard by the elimination of state revenue sharing and other state funding. Last October, the Homer City Council put a question on the ballot to increase the local sales tax to address a projected budget shortfall in 2005. That measure failed and criticism was expressed by the public that the city had not offered enough information to explain why the tax increase was needed. The City Council of Homer decided to put the question back on the ballot for a special election in March, that time making a concerted effort to supply all the facts regarding increased expenses, reduced revenues, and what it would mean if the sales tax did or did not pass. As a result of the increased public education effort, the voters passed the tax increase. MS. HOLEN concluded: We were shocked to learn of a bill that would allow municipal funds to be spent only to disseminate information about the time and place of an election. And, frankly, our dismay would ... extend to legislation that narrowed the scope to statewide ballot questions; although that would be less onerous, we still feel like it is not good public policy. ... Following the elimination of state revenue sharing, HB 160 is sort of like adding insult to injury for local governments, and we urge you to vote against this bill. 9:28:33 AM CHAIR SEATON noted that the latest version of bill takes care of some of Ms. Holen's concerns. 9:29:04 AM REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE welcomed all local officials to call his office. He stated his intent has been to work with the municipalities. 9:30:13 AM KATHY WASSERMAN, Policy & Program Coordinator, Alaska Municipal League (AML), testified on behalf of AML in opposition to HB 160. She stated it is the job of AML to keep municipalities aware of legislation. She said, "Sometimes that works to the benefit of the sponsors on bills that they may have before the legislature." She said information positions that explain local and/or state impacts should be expected by constituents. She said, "We believe constituents want strong positions on issues by the people they elect. Silence and the appearance of waffling is not good leadership." The decision as to whether money has been spent to influence voters should be made locally, she opined, and should not be made by the legislature. 9:32:55 AM MS. WASSERMAN stated her concerns: First, she said she is worried about the sources of money that come to communities, particularly regarding how to separate "what came from where and how and where it is spent." Second, she emphasized her concern with the "gray parameters" surrounding what is and is not allowed. She said she thinks it puts local elected officials in a dangerous spot not to know when they can or cannot say something, or when they can or cannot spend money. She offered further details. She concluded, "I don't think we should demean the local voters by thinking that, at the local level, we can tell them how to vote." 9:33:37 AM REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS suggested that the city is telling the public how to vote when it runs an advertisement. He asked why it's not acceptable to just use letters to the editor, for example. He asked, "Why does the government, beyond just providing the election pamphlet information, have to insert themselves into the fray. I mean, obviously, if it's put forward by the municipality, the assembly, the city council, [or] the mayor's ... [office], why do you then have to go allocate money to ... prove the point?" 9:34:39 AM MS. WASSERMAN responded, "I think they have already inserted themselves into the fray - as being government or local officials - when propositions come up, and I certainly think that the local voters look to those elected officials for information. Call that influence, if you will." 9:35:01 AM REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS offered an example when the local officials in Fairbanks decided that they wanted to put up a $30 million school bond. He said he finds it somewhat offensive when those officials are able to insert themselves with money and influence into that election. He said in that situation only the public sector was speaking for the school bond; there was no advocacy for the other side to suggest thinking about whether the schools would be adequate for another 10, 20, or 30 years. He asked Ms. Wasserman to address that issue. 9:36:12 AM MS. WASSERMAN said she has been aware of many groups around the state who act as "advocates against things that local governments ... or even the state has advocated." She reiterated that the local school board who has put out a bond is in the fray, and she thinks it is up to them to explain why. She added, "And I would hope that their hands would not be tied so that the only people you would hear are the ones against those bonds." Ms. Wasserman said there are very few people on the outside of local government who are going to be pushing for more taxes; therefore, there needs to be an explanation [when local officials are calling for more taxes]. She said especially in the case of local municipalities looking for money, sometimes "taxes are all that's left." 9:37:30 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested the best public policy is to allow more free speech so that both sides are heard. 9:38:08 AM MS. WASSERMAN concurred. She said the legislature, for example, has been elected by the public to represent it. 9:38:40 AM REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS responded: I'm with you: public officials get elected to have an opinion. But aren't you then asking the public officials to spend the public's money to tell the public what they should think? 9:38:55 AM MS. WASSERMAN replied, "Telling infers that they are doing what you say. I don't think that that happens with very many people." 9:39:11 AM REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS asked Ms. Wasserman if she finds that the hard working public looks for explanations from government to help them make an intelligent decision, because they haven't had time to listen to the radio or [read the paper]. 9:39:56 AM MS. WASSERMAN answered yes. She offered an example regarding the [percent of market value (POMV)] issue. 9:40:31 AM REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS revealed that he had been against the POMV until the state came to Ketchikan and made a presentation to the chamber of commerce. CHAIR SEATON closed public testimony. 9:41:00 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG reiterated his previously stated concerns regarding the constitutionality of the proposed bill in allowing the current legislature to set limits on future legislatures. He said he would also like to know how the local governments are supposed to separate out the money "so that they know that this dollar that goes into the treasury is used for this purpose." He said it seems an impossibility. 9:42:26 AM REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE, regarding the first concern, said he doesn't think it's an issue. He said there is already a statute that prohibits the use of state funds to advocate for candidates. Notwithstanding that, he said he would seek clarification on the issue. 9:43:09 AM CHAIR SEATON asked Representative Stoltze if he supports the suggested amendment, labeled Y.1. 9:43:34 AM REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE answered yes. 9:43:42 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment [1], labeled 24-LS0586\Y.1. There being no objection, it was so ordered. [HB 160 was heard and held.] 9:44:29 AM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|