Legislature(2013 - 2014)
04/21/2014 12:01 AM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB119 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 119(FIN) am
"An Act making and amending appropriations, including
capital appropriations, supplemental appropriations,
reappropriations, and other appropriations; making
appropriations to capitalize funds; and providing for
an effective date."
12:00:04 AM
Representative Gara continued to discuss his opposition to
the reinsertion of $10,000 to the governor's office for the
governor to use on ballot propositions (page 103, line 12).
He noted that the prior CS had included language related to
influencing the outcome of an election, but it had been
changed and "sanitized" in the current version. However, AS
15.13.145(b) had been inserted in the bill, which included
language about influencing the outcome of an election
concerning a ballot proposition or question. He stated that
the updated language had the same effect as the language in
the prior CS. He did not like the language and did not
believe the state should spend money to campaign. He noted
that the governor and legislators could all talk about
ballot propositions, but money spent by the state was
different.
12:00:44 AM
Ms. Rehfeld replied that the lieutenant governor would hold
hearings and state agencies would be asked to provide
information. She relayed that the law required that a
specific appropriation be made for the purpose of providing
the information.
Representative Gara stated that the law related to public
hearings was a different law. The law under discussion
included language pertaining to money being used by the
state to influence the outcome of an election. He noted
that spending money on travel to hearings was a different
matter.
Co-Chair Stoltze had difficulty believing that $10,000
could be used in an effective way to influence an election.
He pointed to Eastside Anchorage Assembly races that cost
$300,000. He believed Mr. Poag's line of reasoning that the
law provided state officials with protection from APOC
fines for doing their duties as prescribed by law.
Additionally, he believed in protecting state employees
from potential related APOC fines. He surmised that Mr.
Poag's explanation of the law seemed logical and intuitive.
He reiterated his belief that $10,000 was not sufficient to
effectively influence a statewide election.
Mr. Poag pointed to AS 15.13.145(c)(2) that specified funds
could be used to provide the public with nonpartisan
information about a ballot proposition. He detailed that
the question and challenge for APOC was related to what
constituted nonpartisan information. For example, a state
agency could talk about whether or not smoking marijuana
could have a negative influence on youth in Alaska. The
question was whether the information was considered
nonpartisan; APOC did not want to be in the business of
deciding what was or was not nonpartisan information.
Therefore, the agency took a bright-line approach on the
issue and because of the approach the appropriation request
would go towards providing information about a ballot
measure that may not under APOC's terms be considered
nonpartisan. He agreed that the increment did not represent
a significant amount of funding. He relayed that DOL had
been pushing for the item due to the lack of clarity
between DOL and APOC on what was considered to be
nonpartisan information.
Representative Guttenberg surmised that many would agree
with Mr. Poag's statements. He asked who filed the APOC
paperwork. Mr. Poag replied that the agency utilizing the
funds was required to file the APOC report. He noted that
the [filing] timeline was set out in statute.
Representative Guttenberg agreed that $10,000 was a de
minimis amount of funds. He wanted the department to
understand that someone would not know they needed to file
an APOC report. He asked the department to follow through
with the appropriation to ensure that agencies accessing
the funds file the appropriate APOC paperwork.
12:05:10 AM
Representative Gara stated that Mr. Poag was reading from a
statute that was not cited in the legislation. He detailed
that the bill referenced AS 15.13.145(b) which included
language that the money may be used to influence the
outcome of an election. He did not want state agencies to
have the ability to disseminate partisan information at
hearings. He clarified that Mr. Poag was referencing AS
15.13.145(c)(2) that addressed nonpartisan information. He
stressed that subsection (c)(2) was not cited in the
legislation.
Mr. Poag pointed to the lead-in language to subsection (c)
and relayed that public money may always be used to provide
public nonpartisan information. He clarified that the
requested appropriation was necessary to address situations
in which money was used for the dissemination of
information that was beyond nonpartisan in nature. He
stated that the appropriation essentially "screams from the
rooftop" that public funds were being used to discuss a
ballot measure. Therefore, the appropriation and
regulations specified the specific purpose. He noted that
the appropriation had been made in the past including for
discussion on the 2011 Coastal Zone Management Program
ballot proposition.
Representative Gara MOVED to delete the wording on page 103
lines 12 through 17 of the legislation:
(b) The sum of $10,000 is appropriated from the
general fund to the Office of the Governor for the
purpose of providing information about the potential
effects of a ballot proposition, if approved by the
voters, that will appear on a statewide election
ballot in 2014 for the fiscal years ending June 30,
2014, and June 30, 2015.
(c) The statement of purpose for the appropriation
made in (b) of this section is intended to satisfy the
requirements in AS 15.13.145(b) and 2 AAC 50.356(a).
12:07:28 AM
Representative Wilson asked if the deletion would take
money away from the ballot initiatives.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that the issue was separate. He
apologized to state employees who may be subject to APOC
fines for reporting the effects of marijuana on youth.
Representative Munoz OBJECTED to the amendment.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Costello, Gara, Guttenberg, Austerman, Stoltze
OPPOSED: Holmes, Munoz, Neuman, Thompson, Wilson, Edgmon
The MOTION FAILED (5/6).
Representative Guttenberg asked about a reappropriation to
DOL for remedial action dealing with the Flint Hills
situation (page 100, Section 14(c)). He asked for
clarification on the item.
Ms. Rehfeld answered that the attorney general had been
working with Flint Hills and Williams Companies on an
agreement to work jointly on the evaluation of remediation
plans. The funds were not specifically for cleanup as of
yet. She detailed that DOL had originally asked the
governor's office to request an appropriation for the
specific purpose; the department had subsequently reviewed
its current year appropriation for the Oil, Gas, and Mining
Section for outside council and had determined that it had
sufficient funds available in the appropriation. The
request in the capital budget was to expand the scope of
the appropriation for use toward the agreement that should
be signed in the current year.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked if there was objection to moving the
bill.
Representative Gara OBJECTED to the removal of $5.6 million
in funding for the Akeela House and Partners for Progress.
He discussed that $4 million had been added for a program
that was not defined in the letter from DHSS. He WITHDREW
his OBJECTION and would wait to see an updated letter from
the department.
Vice-Chair Neuman MOVED to REPORT HCS CSSB 119(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations.
There being NO OBJECTION, HCS CSSB 119(FIN) was REPORTED
out of committee with "no recommendation."
12:13:26 AM
Representative Edgmon presented the co-chairs with signed
photos as parting gifts from the committee.
Co-Chair Stoltze was honored to serve on the committee for
6 years. He noted that Co-Chair Austerman was one of the
finest gentlemen he had worked with.
Co-Chair Austerman appreciated the comments and thanked the
committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|