03/31/1993 01:00 PM House JUD

  HB 89:  BOROUGH ASSEMBLY APPORTIONMENT                                       
                                                                               
  DAVID DIERDORFF, REVISOR OF STATUTES, LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS                    
  AGENCY, DIVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES, said that HB 89 had been                 
  introduced to respond to a unique problem within the                         
  statutes.  He stated that in 1980, there had been a                          
  significant revision of the apportionment rules, because of                  
  Supreme Court rulings and because 1980 was a census year.                    
  He commented that a free conference committee had produced                   
  the predecessor to what later became AS 29.20.070-110.  He                   
  noted that during the "heat" of the free conference                          
  committee, rational thinking had gotten lost.  The result                    
  was that statutes which were written by the free conference                  
  committee were unreadable, he said.                                          
                                                                               
  MR. DIERDORFF explained that the year before, an obvious                     
  error had been discovered within the apportionment statutes.                 
  In the process of correcting that error, he continued,                       
  numerous other errors were discovered.  The result of those                  
  discoveries was HB 89, he said.  He noted that officials                     
  from the Department of Community and Regional Affairs (DCRA)                 
  and the Department of Law (DOL) had reviewed the bill.                       
  Everyone had agreed that the effect of HB 89 was to make the                 
  law much easier to interpret, without changing the law.  He                  
  noted that HB 89 affected eight boroughs at the most.                        
                                                                               
  MR. DIERDORFF was not aware of which of the eight general-                   
  law boroughs had apportioned assemblies.  He added that it                   
  was possible that none did.  He commented that every ten                     
  years, after a census was conducted, non-home-rule boroughs                  
  which had apportioned assemblies were required to                            
  reapportion their assemblies, or at least review their                       
  apportionment.                                                               
                                                                               
  Number 146                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE GAIL PHILLIPS asked if Mr. Dierdorff was                      
  aware of the Alaska Municipal League's (AML's) position on                   
  HB 89.                                                                       
                                                                               
  Number 150                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. DIERDORFF was certain that the AML was aware of HB 89,                   
  but he had not heard what its position was.  He stated that                  
  there were eight general law boroughs in Alaska, including                   
  the Fairbanks North Star Borough and the Kodiak Island                       
  Borough.  He did not know whether any of those eight                         
  general-law boroughs had apportioned assemblies.                             
                                                                               
  Number 164                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS mentioned that the Kenai Peninsula                   
  Borough had reapportioned its assembly the year before.                      
                                                                               
  Number 169                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. DIERDORFF commented that the Municipality of Anchorage                   
  was a home-rule municipality.                                                
                                                                               
  Number 178                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked why the statute had not been                  
  corrected until this time.                                                   
                                                                               
  Number 184                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. DIERDORFF responded that either the people who had to                    
  use the statutes knew what they meant and did not bother to                  
  read them carefully, or the statutes had been enacted and                    
  never reviewed.                                                              
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN BRIAN PORTER noted that the committee's legal                       
  counsel had reviewed HB 89 and found that it did not change                  
  the effect of the present statutes.                                          
                                                                               
  Number 206                                                                   
                                                                               
  REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES made a MOTION to MOVE HB 89                   
  out of committee, with individual recommendations and a zero                 
  fiscal note.  There being no objection, IT WAS SO ORDERED.                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the committee would take up                   
  HB 92 next.