Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/29/1994 08:00 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 29, 1994
8:00 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Al Vezey, Chairman
Representative Pete Kott, Vice Chairman
Representative Bettye Davis
Representative Gary Davis
Representative Harley Olberg
Representative Jerry Sanders
Representative Fran Ulmer
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HB 393: "An Act relating to the unincorporated
community capital project matching grant
program; and providing for an effective
date."
HELD IN COMMITTEE
*HB 531: "An Act relating to the existence and
functions of certain multimember state
bodies, including boards, councils,
commissions, associations, or authorities;
and providing for an effective date."
HELD IN COMMITTEE
*HB 530: "An Act relating to certain study,
publication, and reporting requirements by
and to state agencies; relating to certain
fees for reports; and providing for an
effective date."
HELD IN COMMITTEE
(* First public hearing)
WITNESS REGISTER
KAREN BRAND, Staff
Representative Carl Moses
Alaska State Capitol, Room 204
Juneau, AK 99811-0460
Phone: 465-4451
POSITION STATEMENT: Addressed HB 393 for Representative Carl
Moses, Sponsor
LAMAR COTTEN
Lake & Peninsula Borough
P.O. Box 103733
Anchorage, AK 99510
Phone: 258-7153
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on CSHB 393
MICHAEL CUSHING, Research Analyst
Department of Community and Regional Affairs
P.O. Box 112100
Juneau, AK 99811-0200
Phone: 465-4751
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on CSHB 393
KRISTIE LEAF, Director
Boards & Commissions
Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 110001
Juneau, AK 99811-0001
Phone: 465-3500
POSITION STATEMENT: Addressed HB 531 for the Office of the
Governor, Sponsor
GEORGE SMITH, Deputy Director
Libraries, Archives & Museums
Department of Education
P.O. Box 110571
Juneau, AK 99811-0571
Phone: 465-2910
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 531
BRUCE KATO, Chief Curator
Libraries, Archives & Museums
Department of Education
395 Whittier St.
Juneau, AK 99801-1746
Phone: 465-4866
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 531
JAN DEYOUNG
Alaska Labor Relations Agency
P.O. Box 107026
Anchorage, AK 99510
Phone: 269-4895
POSITION STATEMENT: Addressed Section 10 of HB 531
STEVE SORENSON
Museum Collection Advisor Committee
One Sealaska Plaza, Suite 301
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: Not given.
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 531
BEA SHEPARD, Member
Board of Museums Alaska
Friends of the Alaska State Museums
P.O. Box 20272
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: Not given.
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed parts of HB 531
KENNETH DEROUX
Museum Collection Advisor Committee
P.O. Box 21066
Juneau, AK 99802
Phone: Not given.
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 531
LINDA REXWINKEL, Program Budget Analyst
Office of Management & Budget
Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 110020
Juneau, AK 99811-0020
Phone: 465-4694
POSITION STATEMENT: Addressed HB 530 for the Office of the
Governor, Sponsor
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 393
SHORT TITLE: UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITY CAP PROJECT GRAN
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MOSES
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/21/94 2125 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/21/94 2125 (H) CRA, STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE
02/08/94 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/08/94 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
02/22/94 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
02/28/94 2545 (H) CRA RPT CS(CRA) 3DP 2NR 1AM
02/28/94 2545 (H) DP: BUNDE, TOOHEY, OLBERG
02/28/94 2545 (H) NR: WILLIS, WILLIAMS
02/28/94 2545 (H) AM: DAVIES
02/28/94 2545 (H) LETTER OF INTENT WITH CRA
REPORT
02/28/94 2546 (H) -4 ZERO FNS (DCRA,ADM,LAW,DOT)
2/28/94
02/28/94 2546 (H) REFERRED TO STATE AFFAIRS
03/29/94 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 531
SHORT TITLE: ELIMINATE SOME STATE MULTIMEMBER BODIES
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/11/94 2728 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
03/11/94 2728 (H) STATE AFFAIRS
03/11/94 2728 (H) -7 ZERO FNS (DCRA,2-DCED,CORR,
2-DOE
03/11/94 2728 (H) DNR) 3/11/94
03/11/94 2729 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
03/29/94 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 530
SHORT TITLE: REQUIRED REPORTS OF STATE AGENCIES
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/11/94 2727 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
03/11/94 2727 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE
03/11/94 2727 (H) -16 ZERO FNS (5-ADM, 2-DCED,
2-DOE, DEC,
03/11/94 2727 (H) DNR, DMVA, 2-DPS, REV, DOT)
3/11/94
03/11/94 2727 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
03/29/94 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 94-39, SIDE A
Number 000
CHAIRMAN VEZEY called the meeting to order at 8:02 a.m.
Members present were REPRESENTATIVES KOTT, SANDERS, OLBERG
and ULMER. CHAIRMAN VEZEY announced there was a quorum
present. He noted the meeting was on teleconference with
Anchorage.
HB 393 - UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITY CAP PROJECT GRANT
CHAIRMAN VEZEY opened CSHB 393 for discussion.
Number 025
KAREN BRAND, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE CARL MOSES, gave a brief
overview of CSHB 393.
(REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS joined the meeting at 8:03 a.m.)
MS. BRAND stated CSHB 393 amends Alaska Statute Chapter 37,
which is eligibility requirements to participate in
unincorporated community capital matching grants program.
Currently, only unincorporated communities that exist
outside of boroughs can participate directly in the program.
Those located within boroughs participate indirectly by
obtaining a small share of municipal moneys the borough has
received, if the borough sees fit.
MS. BRAND stated CSHB 393 levels the playing field. Those
unincorporated communities within boroughs, with 25 or more
permanent residents, will be able to participate directly in
the program administered by Department of Community &
Regional Affairs (DCRA). She noted CSHB 393 would become
effective July 1, 1994.
MS. BRAND commented when the language for the program was
drafted, there was an oversight in recognizing the Mat-Su
Borough, Kenai Peninsula Borough and the Lake & Peninsula
Borough, which have respectively 3, 5 and 11, unincorporated
communities within them.
MS. BRAND examined the two amendments adopted by the
Community & Regional Affairs Committee. On page 2, the
amendment allows borough oversight of the projects the
unincorporated communities choose to fund. The second
amendment eliminated a qualifier the sponsor had attached to
require the community to be outside of the normal road
system. She noted CSHB 393 now allowed unincorporated
communities with 25 or more residents to become eligible to
participate directly in the program.
(REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS joined the meeting at 8:05 a.m.)
CHAIRMAN VEZEY noted REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS's arrival.
Number 089
REPRESENTATIVE FRAN ULMER inquired why the number 25 was
chosen for the minimum number of residents, how many
communities of this size could afford to meet the local
match requirements and if the program would be justified.
MS. BRAND responded that in consulting with the drafter, 25
residents was consistent with the Department of Community &
Regional Affairs (DCRA) community population base.
Number 113
CHAIRMAN VEZEY clarified the statutes in Chapter 37 which
CSHB 393 amends, were just passed in 1993. He reiterated
MS. BRANDS comments. He noted if the $25,000 funding unit
was maintained, CSHB 393 would add $1.5 million to the
appropriation. The addition of nearly 60 communities to
the program by CSHB 393 may also substantially reduce the
funds received by the communities brought into the program
in 1993. He stated CSHB 393 may produce `winners' and
`losers.' He questioned what was being corrected. How
would the list be different.
Number 149
MS. BRAND responded a total of 25 different communities were
affected by an oversight of certain boroughs. She noted the
Northwest Arctic Borough and the Denali Borough as
additional examples. She emphasized the Lake & Peninsula
Borough with 11 communities receiving a little over $3,000,
was the hardest hit. Other communities usually receive
approximately $25,000.
MS. BRAND commented the Governor's 1994 capital budget
funded the program again for $20 million. She agreed with
CHAIRMAN VEZEY's $1.5 million impact; however, they had
intended the capital funds would be broken up - half from
the municipal and half from the unincorporated section. The
breakup of the funds would bring down the $25,000 cap to
possibly $23,000-$24,000. The municipal section would also
reduce slightly.
MS. BRAND addressed CHAIRMAN VEZEY's estimation of 60
communities which would be eligible. She commented 60
communities was a maximum quote and there would not be a
final determination until later. DCRA would have to judge
which communities would be eligible in some cases. She
believed the number of communities would range from 40-60.
Number 202
CHAIRMAN VEZEY mentioned 12 communities in the Fairbanks
North Star Borough he believed might apply to CSHB 393. He
felt the number of eligible communities would grow.
MS. BRAND replied it was their intent to focus on more
rural, isolated communities.
Number 219
CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked if CSHB 393 did that.
MS. BRAND affirmed CHAIRMAN VEZEY. The Community & Regional
Affairs Committee (CRA) had discussed the issue and decided
not to narrow the eligibility in CSHB 393 as much as the
original HB 393 had proposed. The road system requirement
was thereby eliminated.
Number 230
CHAIRMAN VEZEY referred back to AS 29.60.140, which implies
if a community was eligible, it still is, and vice versa.
He questioned if the wording was actually leveling the
playing field.
Number 238
REPRESENTATIVE HARLEY OLBERG clarified the intent of CRA was
to treat all communities equally that were similarly
situated, regardless of whether they were on or off the road
system.
Number 243
CHAIRMAN VEZEY pointed out the statute stated the community
had to be eligible, not that they had to receive aid. He
believed Salcha, Ester, Fox, Chatanika, Six Mile Village and
Badger Village fit into the description of an unincorporated
community under CSHB 393.
Number 264
MS. BRAND replied DCRA had provided a list of all potential
candidates that might be eligible under CSHB 393. She noted
if CSHB 393 were to pass, DCRA would have the authority to
make judgments and imply the intent of the legislation.
Number 276
CHAIRMAN VEZEY stated he was troubled with the authority
given to the DCRA to determine the eligibility of
communities. He asked why Moose Creek would not be
eligible, and if it was not because of a DCRA decision, he
believed CSHB 393 was "loose legislation." He understood
the intent of CSHB 393; that being to make communities
within boroughs eligible for the community capital matching
grant program.
MS. BRAND agreed with CHAIRMAN VEZEY on the intent of CSHB
393.
Number 290
CHAIRMAN VEZEY clarified those communities within unified
municipalities had been eliminated. He noted Anchorage and
Juneau.
MS. BRAND affirmed CHAIRMAN VEZEY. She stated that
qualifier eliminated questionable places such as Douglas,
which would technically apply. She noted for several pieces
of passed legislation, it is DCRA's job to apply the
particular program.
Number 306
CHAIRMAN VEZEY stated when a population statistic which is
not published by the United States Census Bureau (USCB) is
deviated from, the potential chance for litigation arises.
He noted the USCB is the only database to withstand all
court challenges on the federal level. He questioned if it
was good practice to deviate from the USCB statistics.
Number 325
MS. BRAND responded when CRA brought up the same issue they
found the USCB in very rural parts of Alaska did not have
the most reliable population data. Therefore, CSHB 393
leaves DCRA to decide if there is a more accurate form of
population data.
Number 335
CHAIRMAN VEZEY stated he had received testimony from the
Department of Labor which states the 1990 census was the
most accurate database ever. He asked if MS. BRAND had
heard contrary.
Number 340
MS. BRAND answered no, she had not heard that testimony.
She commented if DCRA finds the USCB the most reliable
source, they will choose it as their source of population
data.
Number 349
CHAIRMAN VEZEY questioned how the DCRA could prove that they
put more effort into establishing a database.
Number 361
LAMAR COTTEN, LAKE & PENINSULA (L&P) BOROUGH, commented on
CSHB 393. He stated the L&P borough had 17 communities, of
which only five are incorporated. He noted the 11 eligible
communities are similar to the five incorporated communities
in terms of services and powers. He conveyed they should
all be treated equally.
MR. COTTEN referred to the CRA discussion of whether the
borough would have oversight of the moneys in the
unincorporated communities. He stated L&P does oversee the
moneys and it also has its own capital matching program. To
promote economic development, the L&P provides small
unincorporated communities with grants; thereby they can
seek a larger capital matching grant package.
MR. COTTEN stated some individuals suggest CSHB 393 is a
disincentive for people to organize their cities, believing
the program is a "carrot" for small communities in rural
Alaska to organize. He rebutted in many of the communities,
however, there is no basis to have a city. Some
communities already have an existing entity, such as an IRA
council or a nonprofit group, that provides basic services.
He commented CSHB 393 is a disincentive to large borough
areas to organize as boroughs. He noted a series of
unorganized communities which, if organized into a borough,
would be ineligible for the program. CSHB 393 would be a
policy question for L&P.
Number 403
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER related to the differentiation between
communities. She then compared the legislature providing
money for unincorporated communities in unorganized boroughs
to organized boroughs providing money to their own
unincorporated communities. She understood communities from
unorganized boroughs are worried their communities would
have to sacrifice something or have less resources. She
inquired which communities have these concerns. She was
concerned that incorporated communities will choose to
become unincorpoated if additional benefits were offered to
unincorporated communities. She emphasized CSHB 393 might
be expediting this process.
Number 432
MR. COTTEN responded he did not know which communities were
considering dissolving their city governments. He noted
each community is unique; however, they each probably have
other governments (e.g., IRA council, nonprofit
organization) which provide the basic services they expect.
There is too much emphasis on state subpolitical units as
the only legitimate group that can provide the minimal level
of services. He agreed that boroughs to provide a broader
possible source of funding and they are a positive step.
L&P has a raw fish tax, basically an income tax, on the
gross ex-vessel value of the fish sold.
Number 460
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER commented CSHB 393 impacts a lot of
public policy associated with the way development occurs in
rural Alaska. She agreed the legislative structure of
government was not the only way that makes sense. She
questioned the level of responsibility the state should have
to fund those communities. She reiterated her concern about
the 25 resident quota, believing the smaller the number, the
more the state may be acting as an incentive for
unsustainable projects.
Number 472
MR. COTTEN agreed with REPRESENTATIVE ULMER's point made
about the 25 resident quota. REPRESENTATIVE ULMER's
statement applied more to unincorporated communities in
unorganized boroughs. He noted the regional planning powers
in organized boroughs which cannot be transferred to
unincorporated communities, thereby forcing them to
participate. Technical assistance and matching grants are
assured from an organized borough. He pointed out CSHB 393
would be a disincentive for 10 unincorporated communities
receiving grants to organize a borough because they would no
longer be eligible for the program.
Number 491
CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked why Salcha or Moose Creek in the
Fairbanks North Star Borough would not be eligible for a
grant with CSHB 393.
Number 494
MR. COTTEN answered they may be eligible. He did not
believe DCRA was trying to "push them away" because they are
not traditional rural communities. They may be included
because of the new road system provision from CRA.
Number 505
CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked what would happen if the threshold of
25 was raised to 100 with respect to L&P.
MR. COTTEN responded that in L&P, of the 11 eligible, 4-5
would then be ineligible. He referred back to CHAIRMAN
VEZEY's comments about the USCB database from 1990 and noted
the effective date of the program was 1995 whereby the
database may still show a community as being under 100 in
population even if it was not. He stated, boroughs to be in
compliance with revenue sharing and municipal assistance do
a survey of communities. In the past, communities were
mapped out and individuals were identified by name and
location. He believed this system was accurate and it cut
down on exaggeration.
Number 536
CHAIRMAN VEZEY noted billions of dollars are based on
population census. He stated the USCB census has always
been upheld in court. He expressed concern over future
litigation which may arise from DCRA decisions and noted the
communities would be public interest litigants, whereby the
state would have to pay for it.
Number 555
MICHAEL CUSHING, RESEARCH ANALYST, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY &
REGIONAL AFFAIRS, answered questions on CSHB 393. He
referred back to CHAIRMAN VEZEY's previous questions about
Moose Creek and other areas, and stated the communities he
had mentioned were included in the list of 60 communities
DCRA had proposed. The Fairbanks North Star Borough
included Fox, Moose Creek, Pleasant Valley, Salcha and Two
Rivers. He noted the DCRA list of 60 communities was the
upper limit they believed would be in the program. DCRA
assumed the list would be based on their current operating
regulations for the revenue sharing program. He mentioned a
social unit test.
Number 577
CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked for a description of a social unit
test.
Number 578
MR. CUSHING explained statutes set communities with 25 or
more residents as a social unit. A social unit is defined
by DCRA in regulations in some detail. The communities
cannot be transient or a work place (e.g., logging camp).
He stated there are certain tests to establish there is a
contiguous social unit that exists for a community, in
perpetuity. He noted a community with strict rules as to
who could live in the community (e.g., a religious commune)
would not meet the social unit test according to DCRA
regulations. An autonomous community with basic services
would be looked for. He pointed out they sometimes must
make calls when dealing with competing entities. He
understood there were gray areas in judgment calls; however,
it is DCRA's job to establish precedents and the rules. He
stated after DCRA works with the 60 communities on the list,
he expected 40-50 would ultimately satisfy the social unit
test, presuming the social unit test applied to CSHB 393.
MR. CUSHING referred to the USCB census as a reliable
source, but noted the major problem is that it is only done
every 10 years. Alaska grows too rapidly to use a number
from 1990. The DCRA has set the census as a floor, then the
state demographer in the Department of Labor using a
permanent fund analysis, works from there. The new numbers
are provided to the communities and they are given the
opportunity to appeal them. If the communities find the
demographer incorrect, the onus is on them to prove through
a local survey that they have grown faster than estimated
and their number is larger. He noted in the time he has
been with the program they have never been litigated. When
communities reach the alternative low levels around 25
residents, which could consist of 4-5 families, regional
offices notify DCRA and they dispatch to work with the
community and resolve its actual population.
Number 653
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER mentioned communities of 25 composed of
four families, and asked as a matter of public policy, what
it meant when the state offered them $25,000 in matching
grants. Could the very small communities sustain the
operating and maintenance costs of the facilities.
Number 661
MR. CUSHING responded the communities on their list are
higher in population - 87, 746, 589, 144, 157, 60, 519,
105. He emphasized the communities they are focusing on are
within the 100-500 range. There had been concerns with the
original HB 393 because of its narrow restriction to smaller
communities; however, CSHB 393 reduces this concern. He
proposed some smaller communities may want to build bridges
to access more resources or sheds to cover a piece of
equipment, thereby better accommodating their area.
Inspection is necessary.
TAPE 94-39, SIDE B
Number 000
REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG commented they should not be too hard
on small communities because he could think of a "community
of 600,000 that bought a bunch of stuff it can't afford."
Number 016
CHAIRMAN VEZEY referred back to census data and stated every
Alaskan community increases in the summer and decreases in
the winter. USCB data is by law April 1st. He asked if
DCRA did a statistical adjustment for the time of year the
census is taken. How many resources is DCRA putting into
building a database. He recalled the Department of Labor
population estimate for Alaska was six-seven percent higher
than the USCB results in 1990.
Number 041
MR. CUSHING responded USCB admits there is a three-four
percent under count in their numbers which they assume is
across the playing field. DCRA does not maintain an active
database. DCRA places the onus for resources for the
demonstration of populations on the communities. He noted
larger communities spend thousands of dollars to develop a
population figure for planning purposes and the program.
DCRA provides guidelines, then monitors their survey and
results. In August, DCRA sends out a population
determination, on which they have opportunity until November
to appeal against. He stated the DCRA has two analysts plus
himself, who throughout the fall work with the communities
on their census formulas. If they are not satisfied with
the communities demonstration, the communities have to send
in various certified documentation for verification.
Number 096
CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked if CSHB 393 was working for or against
the state's overall intended direction; being less involved
in the unincorporated borough. He was concerned that CSHB
393 might be encouraging communities to break off from
organized boroughs.
Number 118
MR. CUSHING responded CSHB 393 is a disincentive to regional
government incorporation.
Number 123
CHAIRMAN VEZEY stated CSHB 393 was a disincentive to
regional incorporations.
Number 124
MR. CUSHING corrected CSHB 393 was a disincentive to borough
incorporations. Communities tend to lose substantial funds
when they join into a borough, whereby the borough only
receives a blanket amount.
Number 156
CHAIRMAN VEZEY, hearing no more testimony, stated he would
like to further examine information from DCRA before action
was taken on CSHB 393. CSHB was held in committee.
CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked if the everyone in the committee had
received the new fiscal note.
MS. BRAND commented on the fiscal note. She stated all of
the original fiscal notes received on CSHB 393 were zero.
She pointed out the analysis for the new fiscal note and
explained DCRA had been unclear as to the planned action of
House and Senate Finance Committees, whether or not the
grants administrators were to be cut back. If they were cut
back, DCRA would need to restore one of the positions.
Current staff, however, can handle the additional workload
made by CSHB 393. She noted House Finance has already
closed out DCRA and they did not cut any grants
administrators, therefore the new fiscal note would not
apply. Senate Finance is still closing out the DCRA
operating budget. She stated, upon speaking with Senate
Finance staff, they do not intend to cut back the grants
administrators.
Number 213
CHAIRMAN VEZEY clarified DCRA would request the additional
staff to administer grants.
Number 215
MS. BRAND added if the grant administrators were cut back on
their present staff by either finance committee. She noted
neither committee had done so yet. She was hesitant to
order a new fiscal note because the Senate was not yet done
with their DCRA budget.
HB 531 - ELIMINATE SOME STATE MULTIMEMBER BODIES
Number 220
CHAIRMAN VEZEY opened HB 531 for discussion.
(REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG left the meeting at 9:00 a.m.)
Number 234
KRISTIE LEAF, DIRECTOR BOARDS & COMMISSIONS, OFFICE OF THE
GOVERNOR, addressed HB 531. She said HB 531 is a
governmental efficiency bill. HB 531 updates statutes for
about nine state boards which are not funded, appointed or
meeting. She noted some of the boards have been dormant
between 10-20 years. These boards should be taken off the
books because they have no constituencies or members.
MS. LEAF stated HB 531 streamlines procedures associated
with the Alaska Labor Relations Agency and the Board of
Parole. HB 531 eliminates the statutory Alaska School
Activities Association because there is now a nonprofit
organization, Alaska School Activities Association, Inc.
The state would be removed from any liability for the
private nonprofit organization.
MS. LEAF stated HB 531 transfers the duties of the Museum
Collections Advisory Committee to the Department of
Education, and eliminates the committee. She noted the
committee is very costly and redundant for a very modest
program.
MS. LEAF mentioned HB 531 has zero fiscal notes from all
affected agencies. She directed the committees to the
sectional analysis in their packets.
Number 261
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER questioned the action regarding the
Museum Collection Advisory Committee (MCAC). She noted the
MCAC was still very active in protecting the $24 million in
investments the state has made in acquisitions. If
volunteers were not doing it, the state would have to hire
other people to do it. Why was the elimination of the MCAC
included in HB 531 when it is an efficiency.
MS. LEAF answered the MCAC currently costs about $25,000 in
direct and indirect costs. Their acquisition budget is
about $50,000. Safeguards were not set up for the MCAC
procedures when it began. Currently, the museum department
has an internal review process for acquisitions and
deaccessions from the museum collections. Therefore, the
MCAC is a redundant function. She noted the museum
department has proposed an additional procedure as to how
the functions of the MCAC will be handled.
CHAIRMAN VEZEY stated HB 531 proposed eliminating the Milk
Board.
MS. LEAF affirmed CHAIRMAN VEZEY.
Number 293
CHAIRMAN VEZEY inquired why the state was regulating milk.
MS. LEAF replied she could not. The Milk Board currently
exists in statute with its functions. The intent of HB 531
is to alleviate a board which has not met in 15 years. The
board's functions would be transferred to the Director of
Agriculture. The Milk Board's duty had been to advise the
director in forming policy for the market program, receive
complaints, report to the director and assist him in data
collection.
Number 311
CHAIRMAN VEZEY mentioned the Parole Board, and stated they
believe HB 531 codifies their current procedure for
conducting business. The Parole Board had expressed to him
a different procedure would require a full-time Parole
Board.
MS. LEAF replied that was correct.
Number 317
CHAIRMAN VEZEY noted a house cleaning measure on the
Railroad Labor Relations Agency. Current statute provides
in a binding arbitration action, the arbitrator be the same
person as the mediator, which is contrary to federal
regulations. HB 531 would bring Alaska statutes in line.
Number 329
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER referred back to the MCAC and asked
what the breakdown was of their direct and indirect costs.
She noted the availability of teleconferences which would
cut down on travel expenses. She emphasized her concern
about only having an internal review process in purchasing
acquisitions. She noted the potential for lack of expertise
without the MCAC. The external public participation process
could guarantee no "insider trading."
MS. LEAF deferred the answer to REPRESENTATIVE ULMER's
comments to GEORGE SMITH.
Number 361
GEORGE SMITH, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF LIBRARIES,
ARCHIVES & MUSEUMS, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, answered
questions on HB 531. The MCAC was organized in the early
1970s because there were virtually no controls over the
actions of the museum. Acquisitions were then made by
trading off artifacts out of the museum. He emphasized this
was no longer appropriate. MCAC was enacted to provide
oversight for acquisitions, as well as deaccessioning
materials out of the museum collection.
MR. SMITH stated currently, the museum staff expertise is
very high. Very strong internal controls now exist for how
materials are accessioned. First, the curator of
collections makes a recommendation for purchase. A
committee of five, whose expertise is quite varied, review
the recommendation for what it will do for the collection,
as well as appropriateness. If the recommendation is chosen
to be purchased it goes to the chief curator of the museum.
If the purchase is under $1,000, it may be approved by the
chief curator and then purchased. If it is over $1,000, the
MCAC review is required. He recollected the MCAC has never
opposed a recommendation. The recommendation is then signed
off and purchased. He estimated the museum purchases 5-10
items in a year out of its $50,000 acquisitions budget.
MR. SMITH stated, because of their wide expertise and
perspectives, the internal controls should be able to
takeover the MCAC. He noted the likelihood of collusion was
extremely remote. He advised after the recommendation was
to proceed through the same internal procedures, when signed
off by the chief curator, it would have to be signed off by
the director of the division, as well as the commissioner.
(REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS left the meeting at 9:09 a.m.)
MR. SMITH commented deaccessioning is "almost a mute point."
The commissioner of the Department of Administration must
approve all deaccessioning which involves the museum. He
noted the MCAC does not have oversight of the $25 million
collection, automated internal auditing does.
MR. SMITH explained most of the MCAC meetings are by
teleconference; however, 1-2 times a year they meet in
person. He noted the overwhelming cost was the
administrative cost of the museum staff.
Number 454
CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked about the approval of gifts. He
expressed concern because a lot of money is spent on storing
gifts.
MR. SMITH deferred the answer to BRUCE KATO, CHIEF CURATOR.
He noted the museum does have the right to reject gifts, and
it does. They use the same criteria for choosing a gift as
they do when examining a purchase. The internal committee
questions if it fits into the collection, if it is
appropriate and if it is conservable.
Number 478
BRUCE KATO, CHIEF CURATOR, ALASKA STATE MUSEUMS, answered
questions on HB 531. He stated he is responsible for the
state museum programs and the Alaska State Museum, Juneau,
and the Sheldon Jackson Museum, Sitka. He explained HB 531
would streamline the acquisition process. He stated the
change was driven by costs for the implementation of the
MCAC. Their budget allows $13,000 in travel expenditures,
of which $7,000 is expended for MCAC travel. He noted the
MCAC is out of compliance because current statute requires
two face to face visits a year. They had substituted one of
the meetings with a teleconference. He questioned the use
of having MCAC members from around the state, as opposed to
local members, to avoid the cost.
MR. KATO expressed for the amount of money they make
acquisitions with, the MCAC is not justifiable. They have
enough internal controls to oversee the process. He
compared the cost of the MCAC with how much they currently
pay for their insurance policy. They carry a $40,000 policy
in the event there is some damage to their collections.
With a $25 million almost irreplaceable collection, the
$40,000 is essentially "thrown away."
Number 524
CHAIRMAN VEZEY inquired if the insurance the museum is
buying is $40,000 in coverage, or is the insurance premium
$40,000.
Number 526
MR. KATO answered $40,000 is the premium they pay for $25
million in coverage. He stated many museums do not carry
insurance because if there was a substantial loss it would
already be irreplaceable.
MR. KATO referred to CHAIRMAN VEZEY's question about
donations. Their controls have been successful in purging
items, by auction for example, which are not appropriate for
their collection. He gave the example of a Navajo blanket.
The money then goes back into their collections funds for
reallocation.
(REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS rejoined the meeting at 9:20 a.m.)
Number 544
CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked what they received for the Navajo
blanket.
Number 545
MR. KATO answered a spruce root basket.
Number 547
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER commented she did not mean to suggest
she distrusted the staff, but she had to consider future
Administrations which may have to work without the MCAC.
MCAC works as a safeguard to ensure proper evaluation. She
noted evaluation in the museum is heavily based on
judgment. She concluded a diverse informed group outside of
the museum was a nice protection feature. She mentioned
only having one teleconference per year, whereby the
description materials could be sent out prior to the
meeting.
Number 579
MR. KATO related to the value of the MCAC as insurance; was
it worth the amount they apply towards it. He likened the
situation to their premium paid through risk management; was
it worth the cost for the protection. He noted current
staff has not had a problem with collusion.
Number 596
CHAIRMAN VEZEY called for a recess at 9:25 a.m. The meeting
resumed at 9:32 a.m. Members present were REPRESENTATIVES
KOTT, OLBERG and G. DAVIS.
CHAIRMAN VEZEY moved to the Anchorage teleconference site.
Number 603
JAN DEYOUNG, ADMINISTRATOR, ALASKA LABOR RELATIONS AGENCY,
addressed Section 10 of HB 531. She began railroad
employees are "strike eligible," whereby if they impasse in
negotiations they must seek a mediator to work with them and
the Railroad Corporation to reach an agreement. If using a
mediator fails, the employees are entitled to take a vote,
then they may strike. The Railroad Corporation can enjoin
the strike through the court if it threatens or interferes
with public safety and welfare. Presently, if the court
enjoins the strike, it can order the parties to binding
interest arbitration. An arbitrator would then review both
sides and issue a contract stating the terms and conditions
of employment.
MS. DEYOUNG explained present statute requires that the
person who served as the mediator pre-strike, later serve as
the interest arbitrator. She emphasized the mediators are
well educated, trained, and free as they are federally
provided; however, the Federal Mediation & Conciliation
Service (FMCS) Charter will not allow mediators to serve as
interest arbitrators. Therefore, there is the possibility
that in the future, FMCS may refuse to refer a mediator to
assist in an impasse pre-strike.
MS. DEYOUNG stated if a mediator was not federally
furnished, the Railroad Corporation would have to seek other
mediation services. This would cost them money, as well as
the Labor Relations Agency (LRA). She noted the LRA
additional cost would be from having to set up a mediator
referral service. HB 531 seeks to remove the requirement
that the person who serves as a mediator, also must serve as
the interest arbitrator.
(REPRESENTATIVE ULMER and B. DAVIS returned at 9:35 a.m.)
CHAIRMAN VEZEY pointed out that HB 531 is trying to comply
with federal regulations. He stated a mediator should not
serve as an interest arbitrator because it is contrary to
the purpose of mediation.
Number 652
STEVE SORENSON, MUSEUM COLLECTION ADVISORY COMMITTEE,
commented on HB 531. He noted the MCAC is composed of
members with expertise in archeology, anthropology,
ethnology, and art. MCAC acts as a balance with the staff
acquisition committee. He stated in his four years with the
MCAC, they have turned down objects for acquisition because
the purchase price was too high for the value received, the
object did not fit in the collection, or the object was not
of sufficient quality. He noted without the MCAC, those
objects submitted for approval but turned down, might have
been acquired by the museum.
(REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS returned to the meeting at 9:38
a.m.)
MR. SORENSON commented deaccessioning had not been very
important in the past; however, with the National
Repatriation Act recently passed by the federal government
it would now be more readily used. Museums will now be
involved in repatriating the object requests of various
Native interests which they believe they have ownership or
cultural interest in. Those deaccessions would also go
before the MCAC. He mentioned the Alaska State Museum, in
order to comply with the repatriation law, has devised that
the artifact or object would remain in the possession of the
museum, but the ownership would be transferred to the Native
entity. He noted the museum would be the most likely to be
able to preserve the artifacts or objects.
MR. SORENSON questioned the cost figures given to the
committee for the MCAC.
TAPE 94-40, SIDE A
Number 000
MR. SORENSON explained there is no cost for the review
materials needed by the committee, other than the cost of
duplication. He stated additional material is not developed
unless the MCAC requests for additional research to be done.
This is not often; however, it happens when the staff
acquisition committee has not done the proper background
work they should have. Most meetings are now done by
teleconference. He felt the mandatory requirement that the
MCAC meet in person should be removed. Sending out
materials in advance and teleconferencing still facilitates
good discussions and interaction. He noted although gifts
undergo the same process, most are accepted. Some gifts are
not accepted because they do not meet the criteria. Cost
could be reduced by requiring meetings by teleconference.
MCAC meets once every two months by teleconference. MCAC
services are requested when offer deadlines to the museum
must be met. He believed the process was efficient and cost
saving. Because of the protection and additional expertise
provided by the MCAC, he stated, it should not be
eliminated.
CHAIRMAN VEZEY clarified MCAC stood for the Museum
Collection Advisory Committee. He returned to Juneau for
testimony.
Number 089
BEA SHEPARD, MEMBER, BOARD OF MUSEUMS ALASKA, FRIENDS OF THE
ALASKA STATE MUSEUMS, opposed the elimination of the MCAC.
She felt the MCAC was invaluable. She believed the costs
presented to the committee were inaccurate and exaggerated.
MCAC is a form of perfection not only for the museum, but
also for the personnel. An advisory committee is
knowledgeable about the needs and qualities of a collection,
therefore when it makes the decisions it protects the
members of the staff.
MS. SHEPARD inquired how much it cost the staff to prepare
for the committee. With HB 531 the staff would go through
the same process internally, therefore she could not see how
presenting the information to the MCAC was much more
expensive. Research work is already being done by the
museum.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT referred back to MR. SORENSON's
testimony and asked if MS. SHEPARD felt it would be
appropriate to eliminate the requirement for two face to
face meetings every year.
Number 154
MS. SHEPARD answered at least one meeting was valuable, but
the rest could be done by teleconference.
Number 159
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked how many members were on the MCAC
and how often they met.
Number 160
MS. SHEPARD replied five usually, but there are currently
two vacancies. Nominees have been made and they are going
to presently meet in Juneau.
Number 168
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT clarified the membership comes from
around the state. He asked if the meetings were generally
in Juneau.
Number 169
MS. SHEPARD answered yes, but the meetings are held in other
areas as well as Juneau. Teleconferencing is common.
Number 172
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT stated he was trying to determine the
cost of the meetings. Three to five members meet twice a
year around the state. Actual cost versus the benefit.
Number 180
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER clarified MS. SHEPARD did not serve on
the MCAC.
MS. SHEPARD replied no, she was on the Board of Museums
Alaska, an organization of all the museums in the state of
Alaska.
Number 187
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER clarified the Board of Museums Alaska
supports the continuation of the MCAC.
MS. SHEPARD affirmed REPRESENTATIVE ULMER.
Number 195
KENNETH DEROUX, PREVIOUS MUSEUM CURATOR, EX-MEMBER MUSEUM
COLLECTION ADVISORY COMMITTEE, commented on HB 531. As a
museum staff member he found the MCAC to be frustrating,
whereby it often involved unnecessary work with regard to
overseeing acquisitions of $1000. He stated the $1,000
figure should be higher to reduce the paperwork.
MR. DEROUX commented as a member of the MCAC, he had similar
feelings. He did, however, find the value of the MCAC as
it served the museum like a board of directors. The MCAC
provides oversight to the museum staff members in
establishing policies and procedures. He stated he has
mixed feelings about HB 531 because there is a considerable
amount of staff time spent on MCAC matters which could be
better spent otherwise.
MR. DEROUX focused on HB 531 where it allows deaccessioning
of acquired items to be solely in the hands of the
commissioner and director of the department. He stated this
could be going in the wrong direction. He noted an example
of directors who misuse their authority to gain money
through deaccessions. With HB 531 the potential exists.
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER stated she was considering proposing an
amendment which would increase the minimum purchase approval
requirement to possibly $5,000 and waive the requirement for
face to face meetings. She asked his opinion.
MR. DEROUX stated he would be in favor of REPRESENTATIVE
ULMER's suggestions. He reminded the committee that they
were not dealing with a lot of money. With a small
acquisitions budget and little travel, he explained it
sometimes was not worth the time spent. Progress would be
made with a $5,000. The oversight committee is important;
however, face to face meetings are not necessary.
Number 272
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if MR. DEROUX was in a legislative
position, would he propose the elimination or the
continuation of the MCAC.
MR. DEROUX answered he would not propose the elimination
without something to take its place. An administrative
hierarchy would not work. He gave the staff credit for
their expertise; however, they do not have enough power to
be influential. In-house rules and regulations can be
changed easily.
Number 299
MR. SMITH clarified the point MR. DEROUX made on the
oversight of deaccessioning. He had stated concerns about
the oversight of deaccessioning an object from the
collection ending up with the commissioner of Education.
MR. SMITH noted elsewhere in law, the commissioner of
Administration has oversight for all deaccessioning of
materials. Therefore, even if the commissioner of Education
decided something should be deaccessioned, it would then
have to go to the commissioner of Administration for a final
decision. Oversight exists in a different part of the law.
CHAIRMAN VEZEY stated he would like to hold HB 531 in
committee.
Number 316
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT stated he did have an amendment to HB
531 if the chair would like to entertain it.
Amend AS 23.30.005 to read:
(a) The Alaska Workers' Compensation Board
consists of a southern panel of three members
sitting for the first judicial district, a
northern panel of three members sitting for the
second and fourth judicial district, three [TWO]
southcentral panels of three members each sitting
for the third judicial district, and one panel of
three members that may sit in any judicial
district. Each panel must include the
commissioner, a representative of industry, and a
representative of labor. The latter two members
of each panel shall be appointed by the Governor
and are subject to confirmation by a majority of
the members of the legislature in joint session.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT explained the southcentral panels would
be expanded to three. There would be no cost associated
with the amendment. He stated presently, there is a delay
in issuing Board D and Os, which are decisions and orders,
and the attorneys of their clients are frustrated by this.
The possibility exists that the state might soon be involved
in a class action suit. In 1993, there were 350 decisions
and orders issued, of which 44 were beyond the statutory 30-
day limit. Another panel would be available to select from
without any fiscal impact.
Number 342
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER questioned if the majority of the
delayed cases were in the southcentral region.
Number 347
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT replied he was not sure, but he believed
most of the backlog was in the southcentral region because a
majority of the decisions and orders were issued from there.
Number 351
MS. LEAF answered the Department of Labor feels that if
another panel was added in southcentral, it would alleviate
a substantial amount of the delay. The majority of the
cases come out of that region.
Number 362
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT moved to adopt amendment #1.
Number 366
CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked the committee secretary to call the
roll.
IN FAVOR: REPRESENTATIVES VEZEY, KOTT, ULMER, B. DAVIS,
G. DAVIS, SANDERS, OLBERG.
MOTION PASSED
CHAIRMAN VEZEY stated a committee substitute would be worked
on and it would be brought back up in a week.
Number 369
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER stated for purposes of preparing the
committee substitute, she would like to see the changes they
had been discussing regarding the MCAC. She questioned
whether it might be better to vote now and roll the
amendment into the committee substitute, or if limited CS
should be prepared. It would save the committee a step if
the vote was taken now and the CS could include it.
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER stated the conceptual amendment would
be to change the $1,000 requirement to $5,000 and it would
remove the requirement that the MCAC meet face to face.
Number 379
CHAIRMAN VEZEY stated the amendment would have to do more
because if the board is dissolved the amendment is
redundant.
Number 382
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER explained the portions of HB 531 which
remove the MCAC would be removed. It would be better to
roll it into the CS they want prepared now, rather than have
to prepare another CS if HB 531 passed.
Number 390
CHAIRMAN VEZEY commented the amendment was not as simple as
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER believed it was. He wanted to wait
until the CS was before the committee in writing.
Number 394
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER pointed out if the changes are done as
an amendment versus a proposed CS, it will be more
complicated because it will required yet another CS to be
prepared.
Number 399
REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS agreed with REPRESENTATIVE ULMER. A
lot of sections would be deleted from HB 531, therefore it
would be much smaller. Only a few sections would be
included which relate to museums.
CHAIRMAN VEZEY stated he wanted to see the proposal in
writing. A committee substitute could be reviewed next
Thursday.
Number 408
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT inquired if someone from the museum
could be recalled to comment on the conceptual amendment
which would increase the purchase review amount to $5,000.
MR. SMITH stated $5,000 would be acceptable. He said,
anymore one does not purchase too many things under $5,000.
Major purchases are always more than $5,000.
Number 420
CHAIRMAN VEZEY clarified the change would not make a
difference.
MR. SMITH replied they feel they do have adequate controls
to properly handle museum acquisitions and deaccessioning
without a committee. He was in favor of both amendments.
Not meeting face to face would reduce cost.
Number 431
CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked what the museum's average acquisition
cost is.
Number 432
MR. SMITH answered an average is difficult to establish.
One purchase of two pieces this year is about $25,000.
Other years, there may be a number of pieces bought in the
$2,000-4,000 range. Purchases vary from year to year
because of what is on the market and what the museum needs.
Number 438
CHAIRMAN VEZEY stated he understood there was not very much
available in real collectibles under $5,000.
Number 440
MR. SMITH agreed with CHAIRMAN VEZEY that for special things
they would like to get his statement was true. He stated
there are a number of items of historical importance or
smaller ethnographic pieces that are under $5,000. Nice
pieces are also received as gifts.
HB 531 was held in committee.
HB 530 - REQUIRED REPORTS OF STATE AGENCIES
Number 449
CHAIRMAN VEZEY opened HB 530, sponsored by the Office of the
Governor, for discussion.
Number 452
LINDA REXWINKEL, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT & BUDGET (OMB),
addressed HB 530. She stated HB 530 is the culmination of a
study by the OMB working with departments to identify annual
reports which were either duplicative, unnecessary, or could
be amended to biennial. She noted HB 530 reflects those
reports the Governor is forwarding to the legislature for
consideration of reporting requirement amendment or repeal.
She noted the sectional analysis. HB 530 is an efficiency
measure. Zero fiscal notes were provided by the
departments.
MS. REXWINKEL noted AS 43.56.018, subsection (c), a
Department of Revenue report similar to those mentioned in
Sections 16, 17, and 18, was inadvertently omitted from HB
530 in the drafting process.
Number 466
CHAIRMAN VEZEY questioned what was omitted.
Number 467
MS. REXWINKEL answered Section 16, 17, and 18, refer to
reports by Department of Revenue which deal with education
tax credits for the various taxes the department collects.
Inadvertently, AS 43.56.018(c) amending the gas property
tax, was omitted from HB 530. A letter from Department of
Revenue should be in the packet requesting that section be
included in the bill.
Number 476
CHAIRMAN VEZEY stated he did not understand how oil and gas
related to Sections 16, 17, and 18. Section 16, he
commented, dealt with colleges and universities.
Number 478
MS. REXWINKEL answered Sections 16, 17, and 18, repeal the
annual reporting requirement by Department of Revenue to
Legislative Budget & Audit on the income tax education
credits taken under the Alaska Net Income Tax. She referred
to page 2. The gas property tax was inadvertently omitted
from the variety of income tax education credits which are
reported by Department of Revenue.
MS. REXWINKEL noticed the committee did not have the
Department of Revenue letter and stated she would follow up
on it.
Number 502
CHAIRMAN VEZEY reiterated the intent of HB 530 and inquired
if it would apply to mining operations.
Number 506
MS. REXWINKEL replied Section 18, AS 43.65.018(c), is the
statute citation which deals with mining.
Number 509
CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked what Section 16 applied to.
MS. REXWINKEL replied Section 16 applies to Alaska Net
Income Tax Act. Other sections deal with the Alaska Oil &
Gas Properties Production Taxes, Mining License Tax and
Fisheries Tax, all of which have a reporting requirement to
Legislative Budget & Audit from Department of Revenue on the
education credit associated with those taxes.
Number 516
CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked what the Alaska Net Income Tax Act
(ANITA) was.
MS. REXWINKEL responded she was unable to answer that
question. She stated there are various taxes and filings
required by businesses and ANITA was probably the corporate
income tax.
Number 524
CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked where on the sectional analysis was the
section that had the inadvertent deletion.
MS. REXWINKEL answered the section was not on the sectional
analysis because the sectional analysis follows the bill.
Another section should be included.
Number 534
CHAIRMAN VEZEY stated the sectional analysis had just been
received that morning; therefore, HB 530 would be held in
committee for review until next week.
CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked how much of HB 530 was house cleaning
and how much was relaxing reporting requirements.
(REPRESENTATIVE ULMER left the meeting at 10:14 a.m.)
Number 543
MS. REXWINKEL answered HB 530 was meant to be house keeping
measures. The reports were placed into statute prior to
current budgetary provisions and/or under different
organizational structures. Therefore, either the committees
or commissions are not functioning, and/or the information
is duplicative. HB 530 is not intended to relax reporting
requirements. The Governor thought the information was
fully available.
Number 552
CHAIRMAN VEZEY questioned the opinion of the Legislative
Budget & Audit.
MS. REXWINKEL stated she was not aware of it.
Number 563
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT clarified the costs in the right column
of the sectional analysis were savings.
Number 564
MS. REXWINKEL affirmed REPRESENTATIVE KOTT. She stated
those costs are what the departments current project is the
cost of producing those reports, and the amount of money
they would save if the reports were not done. She noted the
zero fiscal notes and stated most of the dollars are very
nominal, therefore the departments would not have produced a
fiscal note in the first place to receive additional moneys
to produce those reports. It is not anticipated the
departments budgets will be reduced by the nominal figures.
Number 572
CHAIRMAN VEZEY commented he had seen nothing but zero fiscal
notes.
MS. REXWINKEL stated some of the fiscal notes may include in
the analysis section a detailed list of the nominal amounts.
Number 577
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT clarified he was referring to the
sectional analysis.
MS. REXWINKEL stated HB 530 is meant to be noncontroversial.
The Governor's Office worked very hard to pick innocuous
reports to eliminate controversy.
Number 587
CHAIRMAN VEZEY asked the committee to review the sectional
analysis before the meeting on Thursday; action on HB 530
might be possible.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN VEZEY adjourned the meeting at 10:19 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|