Legislature(1993 - 1994)
02/09/1993 01:35 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE BILL 94
"An Act making a supplemental appropriation for costs
of elections operations; and providing for an effective
date."
CHARLOT THICKSTUN, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ELECTIONS, OFFICE
OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR, provided the Committee with
handouts [Attachments 3-6]. Attachment #4 illustrated the
current work plan from the Division from 2/01/93 through
4/30/93.
1. Catch-up after General Election continues; input
of voter information in time to produce precinct
registers for REAA/CRSA, municipal and borough
elections. Archiving General Election voted
ballots and precinct materials in progress.
2. Input of registration forms from the Permanent
Fund Dividend packet running over a thousand per
week, statewide. Input required in time to
produce precinct registers for REAA/CRSA,
municipal and borough elections.
6
3. Budget-Fiscal Work - FY 94 reapportionment
increment being submitted. Supplemental
legislation in House and Senate in process.
Responding to requests for fiscal notes and
testifying in legislative committees, as
necessary. Legislative budget and audit
continues. Training fiscal staff on-going.
Co-Chair Larson asked if the requested amount of $372,963
dollars would pay for present staff and provide the
necessary funds to meet voter registration until 5/01/93.
Ms. Thickstun stated it would.
Co-Chair MacLean questioned the calculation of the request
provided by the Division of Elections. Ms. Thickstun
offered to provide the corrected figures. Co-Chair MacLean
questioned the travel component for February. Ms. Thickstun
replied the figure included travel and contractual fees.
Representative Brown added the total request as of 1/19/93
was $891,500 dollars. She asked if the current budget
submitted would be a reduction from that request. Co-Chair
Larson pointed out that the original request was through
6/30/93. The current figures cover operations through
5/01/93.
Representative Hanley questioned the $4 thousand dollar
difference between requests made in April and May. Ms.
Thickstun replied that operating costs and personnel
services would be less in April.
Co-Chair MacLean pointed out accurate figures had not been
provided to the Committee. She suggested discussion be
continued when the Division of Elections can provide the
corrected figures.
(Tape Change HFC 93-19, Side 1).
Co-Chair Larson provided the Committee with Attachment #7, a
memorandum and order provided by Judge Weeks addressing
attorney fees due municipalities from the reapportionment
suit. He asked for discussion and consideration of HB 94
and the fees.
REPRESENTATIVE ULMER asked the Committee to consider the
information provided from the 2/08/93 order, as provided by
Superior Court Judge Weeks, as the exact amount of money due
to the plaintiffs for attorney fees and costs. There is no
longer any dispute regarding that part of the
reapportionment lawsuit at the Superior Court level. She
asked the Committee to include these amounts in the
7
supplemental provided to the Division of Elections.
Representative Grussendorf supported paying these fees
itemized in Attachment #7. He noted the process has cost a
lot of money and the political subdivisions should receive
the amount of money which they have spent and to which they
are legally entitled.
Co-Chair Larson asked the Committee to consider alternatives
to HB 94. Representative Hanley stated his concern with
guaranteeing elections to continue in March and April.
Representative Parnell echoed Representative Hanley's
concerns and suggested that the issues be kept separate.
Representative Hoffman pointed out that the requested
allocations need to be refigured by the Division of
Elections. He asked that they provide more information to
the Committee.
Representative Therriault asked if the fees determined by
Superior Judge Weeks were negotiable. Representative Ulmer
stated these fees are what is owed by the State of Alaska.
Representative Therriault thought the two matters should be
kept separate.
Representative Parnell asked if the plaintiffs can move for
reconsideration of the amounts granted through the court
order.
DON CLOCKSIN, ESQ., WAGSTAFF, POPE & CLOCKSIN, ANCHORAGE,
ALASKA, stated that technically there is a right for
reconsideration of any order. Although, he added, there is
nothing left to reconsider from the court order provided by
Judge Weeks. Judge Weeks ruled in favor of the State. The
figures are much lower than the total amount of money which
was accrued by the parties litigating the case. The State
does have the authority to appeal the decision.
Representative Brown asked if the figures listed in
Attachment #7 included interest. Mr. Clocksin stated that
interest had not yet been calculated.
Representative Hanley asked to hear from the Department of
Law. Co-Chair MacLean pointed out that the Department of
Law does have $1.87 million dollars allocated in the
supplemental, although that does not cover the total fees
to date. Representative Grussendorf pointed out that the
plaintiffs represented are constituents and he would like to
see them repaid. He added the Department of Law will
represent the Office of the Governor.
8
Representative Brown suggested the plaintiffs be provided
the designated allocations. Currently there are new plans
for reapportionment and this would allow them to participate
in those proceedings. Representative Brown added the
corrected information from the Division of Elections and the
plaintiff's allocations should be included in a committee
substitute bill.
Representative Martin disagreed with paying the amounts
allocated in the Superior Court order. He referenced papers
submitted last year containing information regarding the
effect of reapportionment and specifically the Democratic
Party's involvement.
Co-Chair Larson stated the Committee was currently
discussing the judgement provided by Judge Weeks. Co-Chair
Larson and Co-Chair MacLean disagreed with Representative
Martin.
Mr. Clocksin assured the Committee that the Court ordered
award is for work directly involved with litigation over
reapportionment. Representative Ulmer stated that the
reapportionment lawsuit is directly related to the Division
of Elections supplemental. She stressed the importance of
the timeliness in paying this debt. It would be best for
the plaintiffs and best for the State because of the
accumulated interest.
Representative Brown stated she disagrees with the comments
of Representative Martin. Representative Grussendorf felt
that if the House Finance Committee reimburses the
plaintiffs, the Administration would then more carefully
consider their future proposal.
Co-Chair Larson asked the Division of Elections to provide
corrected information to the Committee. He noted that Legal
Services would be requested to draft a proposed bill,
sponsored by the House Finance Committee, dealing with
reimbursement to the municipalities for expenses incurred
during reapportionment (HB 146).
Representative Hoffman reiterated his concern with the high
turnover in fiscal officers and the organizational
efficiency within the Division of Elections.
Co-Chair Larson stated that HB 94 would be HELD in Committee
for further discussion.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|