Legislature(1997 - 1998)
05/05/1998 01:10 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
CSSB 114(JUD) AM - EMPLOYEES: POLITICAL CONTRIB. & ACTIVITIES Number 0964 CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the next order of business to be CSSB 114(JUD) AM, "An Act relating to contributions from employee compensation for political purposes; and prohibiting certain kinds of discrimination against employees for political purposes." Number 0979 RALPH BENNETT, Legislative Administrative Assistant to Senator Robin Taylor, stated that several constituents expressed concern that employers automatically deduct contributions from their paychecks and once the deduction has been made the employee has no control over how the money is distributed and which candidates or issues it is used to support or oppose. He stated that this process of funding political actions by corporations and labor organizations is known as reverse check-off, which was recently banned by a Michigan statute. He stated the bill prohibits an employer or labor organization from giving a increase with the intent that it be donated in support of a candidate or issue. It also prohibits discrimination against an employee who fails to make a contribution intended to influence a political race. He explained that it also requires that public record be kept of payroll deductions made for disbursal as political contributions. He stated that the most important provision of SB 114 is that it takes written authorization from the employee before a deduction for political purposes can be made. He explained that the bill requires that such an authorization be issued annually by the employee and the employee must be informed of the anti- discrimination provisions that apply if they chose not to make the contribution. He pointed out that an employee's political convictions are private and deserve unequivocal respect rather than the intimidation allowed by the current process. He stated that Section 2 provides that "labor, employee organization dues, and employee benefits, deductions and authorization must comply with AS 15.13.160." Number 1163 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated that he had a couple of amendments. He made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, which reads: Page 2, Line 11 Delete "on a form prescribed by the commission" Page 2, lines 13-14: Delete "The written request is valid for no more than one calendar year from the date of signing by the employee." CHAIRMAN GREEN objected for purposes of discussion. Number 1220 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated that the restriction is arbitrary. He stated that it seems to step over the line from trying to make sure that the contributions are done voluntarily. He stated that he is not sure why he wanted the words "prescribed by the commission". He stated that is not as important to him as the second part of the amendment is. Number 1325 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if he wanted to leave the words "prescribed by the commission" in the amendment. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated that whatever the committee wanted. He made a motion to divide the amendment in to 1A and 1B. Amendment 1A would read: Page 2, Line 11 Delete "on a form prescribed by the commission" Amendment 2 would read: Page 2, lines 13-14: Delete "The written request is valid for no more than one calendar year from the date of signing by the employee." REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that she agrees with Amendment 1A as each group may want to have a form and it would just contain one question. She asked how complicated could that be. Number 1386 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated that it could be very complicated because those questions can be complicated so no one will know what they are voting for. He stated that language is to preclude ambiguous language. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Mr. Bennett what he thought of the amendment. Number 1414 MR. BENNETT replied that as long as the intent of the legislation is preserved it would be okay. He stated that he did not have a precise sense of Senator Taylor's opinion on this. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that she was swayed by Representative Porter's argument. Number 1468 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT withdrew Amendment 1A. CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that Amendment 1A has been withdrawn and now the committee is on Amendment 1B. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES objected. Number 1490 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Mr. Bennett what would the impact of the removal of this sentence be. Number 1501 MR. BENNETT stated that he thought it would be helpful, it would not cause any problems. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked would it be better to have some type of a time limit. CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that one would be aware so that one would physically file an action. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that would this create more paperwork. Number 1551 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that the line being deleted is what the intent of the bill is. Number 1563 MR. BENNETT stated that now that he has rethought this he agreed that Representative James is right. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated that he felt there is a lot of other substance to the bill with this sentence taken out. It states that one must follow certain procedures and sets an orderly procedure for what should happen. He stated that he did not feel the sentence in question does not set an orderly procedure but instead makes it cumbersome by having to physically opt-in every year. He stated that it is burdensome without a purpose. Number 1643 CHAIRMAN GREEN called for a roll call vote. Representative James, Rokeberg, Porter and Green voted against Amendment 1B. Representative Croft voted in favor of Amendment 1B. Amendment 1B failed. Number 1707 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT made a motion to adopt Amendment 2, which reads: Page 2, line 11 Delete "prescribed" and insert "approved" Number 1724 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected. He realized he was on the wrong page and withdrew is objection. CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there was an objection. Hearing none, Amendment 2 was adopted. Number 1804 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT made a motion to move Amendment 3 which reads: Page 2, line 9, following "contributions": Delete "to groups or" Number 1824 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER objected. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated that in talking to Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC), the amendment would continue to restrict donations for use as political contributions. It would still allow one to donate to groups but (indisc.--coughing). He stated that the wording "to groups or" expands it unnecessarily and too broadly. He stated that he would like it to be tied to political contributions as it does not define the groups. Number 1941 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated that the emphasis here might be to political contributions as an employer or as an employee. He stated that if he was donating his money he would like to make the decision on where it is going. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT responded that he does have that right. He said, "It isn't necessary that in every area you do it every year or with the opt-in opt-out. You could do a opt-out opt-in , you could do others. For the core political contributions it makes sense that these specific restrictions be on." He stated to tie it to every group with these particular restrictions is too restrictive. Number 2033 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated that by having this as an annual requirement, one is in written communication with employees and it would not be difficult to make this happen. Number 2074 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that there are withholdings and diversions from a portion of every employees wages and salaries to the IRS. He stated that the way it is written is so broad that one could not make withholdings under the language "withhold or divert". Number 2160 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked for a roll call vote. Representatives Croft and Berkowitz voted in favor of the amendment. Representatives Rokeberg, Porter, James and Green voted against it. Amendment 3 failed. Number 2248 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT made a motion to adopt Amendment 4 which reads: Page 2, line 9, following "groups: Delete "or" REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated that it would allow contributions to groups but tie the contributions back to the political contributions. Number 2321 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that one has to sign a W-4 form every year as an employee and it seems that filing other forms would not be a problem. However, if this was in the middle of the year, one would have to put forth a special effort to sign it. Number 2359 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that he has always had to fill out a form to give a payroll deduction to a group such as United Way, every year. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated that he had no recollection of it being every year. Number 2384 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked for a roll call vote. Representatives Croft, Green and Berkowitz voted in favor of the amendment. Representatives Rokeberg, Porter and James voted against it. Amendment 4 failed. Number 2464 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT made a motion to adopt Amendment 5, which reads: Page 2, line 29, following "AS 15.13.160.": Insert "A labor organization shall provide each employee whose dues or fees are contributed to a political action committee an opportunity to request that that portion of the dues or fees that are intended to be used as a political contribution be refunded. The request is valid until revoked. The labor organization shall refund the amount intended to be used as a political contribution to the employee no later than 30 days after the labor organization receives the payroll deduction form the employer." REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected. TAPE 98-84, SIDE A Number 0001 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated that there are the same rights with the continuing restriction on all of the contributions. He stated that one could state how much they intend to deduct and anyone can say no. Number 0073 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that this would mean that an employee would have to do this no later than 30 days after the contribution is made. Therefore, the contribution could not be spent until after 30 days has gone by. She asked if this amendment is contingent on the others passing. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said "It is not explicitly conditional on the one year, though I thought of them together. It still switches them to be -- may deduct and then you can say don't." Number 0176 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that for administrative purposes it would be fine to ask them to revoke the request. She referred to the refund portion and stated that it bothers her. She stated that they should be able to stop it but did not know if they should have to receive a refund. Number 0253 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated that this reverses the intent of the bill and would be surprised if there was not in most labor contracts, these types of prohibitions against the employer. Number 0288 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ referred to "GOPAC" and stated that he is troubled as it seems like the intent of this legislation is that it was not formulated for Alaska. He stated that he would like to know if this bill was crafted for a Lower 48 situation. Number 0368 MR. BENNETT replied that he believe it was crafted to take care of a situation where people may be finding that the funds they are contributing are being spent without their permission. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated that if existing state law stayed where it was this bill would be superfluous. Number 0396 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked for a roll call vote. Representatives Croft and Berkowitz voted in favor of the amendment. Representatives Rokeberg, Porter, James and Green voted against it. Amendment 5 failed. Number 0479 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved that the committee rescind their action on Amendment 2. He said, "after reading the bill further I want to go back and I would like the committee to rescind their actions which would require a concurrence bill by the Senate." He stated that it is just making a subtle change. Number 0555 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT objected. He stated that it improves the bill. He stated that there are rules that one body does not talk about the other body because they are supposed to independently evaluate bills. He stated that if it improves the bill that is what they ought to do. Number 0626 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that he did not disagree with Representative Croft in terms of the independent review of the bill. He stated that by having the group prescribe the form rather than have the individual employee have to go through the process of having it approved by APOC, is more efficient. Number 0728 CHAIRMAN GREEN suggested that maybe Brooke Miles could speak to this issue before the action is rescinded. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that he would withdraw his motion at the chair's request. Number 0752 BROOKE MILES, Regulation of Lobbying, Alaska Public Offices Commission, Department of Administration, stated that the commission met and discussed this bill and stated that their position statement is in the committee packet. She stated subparagraph (a)(1) is currently illegal under existing law and it will remain to be against the law. She stated that the commission has significant concerns regarding Section 2 (a)(2). The commission has no expertise in that field and that portion of this legislation would be better with an agency that has more expertise in the field of employment discrimination. She referred to page 2, subsection (c) and stated that it would cause members of labor unions or members of employee packs that use a payroll deduction program to have the information regarding their contributions even if it were less than $100, as public information. She stated that current law provides that each contributor who gives to the candidates campaign or to a political party or to a political action committee is made public on the disclosures submitted by those entities when it is more than $100. Contributors also have the responsibility to file a disclosure report when they give more than $250, which will be changed in June. She stated that the fiscal note to some extent reflects the commission's envisioning having to learn about employment discrimination. Number 0965 CHAIRMAN GREEN stated, "After disbursement in excess of $100 per year would that alleviate part of your concern?" Number 0981 MS. MILES replied that it would with that section. CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that it would be on page 2, line 15, Section (C). Number 1021 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to adopt Amendment 6. CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there was an objection. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected. Number 1053 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that she was wondering if this was in the right place. She asked if they are talking about over $100 in total or on a individual basis. Number 1080 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated, "I don't believe that anybody generally would be on the payroll-- it would have to be a very short term employee and I think that many companies have probationary periods or periods where they don't grant full benefits nor do they allow check-offs or things like that normally in an interim period. I would venture to say that the vast majority would amount under a $100 a year." He stated that this was a lot to do about nothing and maintains his objection. Number 1119 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if that is the case that it is much to do about nothing why is Representative Rokeberg maintaining his objection. He stated that if most of the people are going to fall under this anyway it will just put them in the same category as those who contribute over $100 a year. Number 1136 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that it may require a segregation on information until they reach the threshold. CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that it is being done now. Number 1148 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated that would be his concern. He asked if it is a weekly deduction disbursement and if it is not over $100 would it not fall under this provision. Number 1215 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that the language states "including a copy of each employee's written requests the amounts and dates funds were actually withheld and the amounts and dates funds were transferred to a group." She stated that it seems that they are asking for something other then whether the contribution is over $100. She stated that it is a requirement that already exists. She stated that she is beginning to think that the change is not needed. Number 1266 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Ms. Miles for the discussion of the commission on that point. He stated that under current APOC law people who contribute under $100 are not revealed, as a matter of bookkeeping not of confidentiality. Number 1300 MS. MILES replied that it is correct, although they are required to maintain the records in case APOC asks for them. She stated that the commission's primary concern is that it may have a chilling effect on an employee's willingness to participate in the program. Number 1329 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that it is looking into payroll information to a certain extent, but in this case she did not see a problem with that. Number 1345 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if there was a disbursement of less than $100 over a period of a year would that person's name be public information. MS. MILES replied no. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if someone was to give his campaign $50, he would not have to publicize his name. MS. MILES stated that is correct, although the candidate would be responsible to maintain records regarding the contributor. Number 1382 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that if he received more than $250 in aggregate, than his name would be public with APOC and both he and the contributor would have to send a form in. Number 1405 CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "If one goes over $100 (indisc.--talking) available, it's $250 when you get in the countdown days, you have to make that disclosure within days, you don't have to go to $250 before your name is published." REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that he thought all that was changed. Number 1414 MS. MILES stated that SB 175 did change that requirement. She stated that at the end of June, a contributor who gives $500 to a candidate or a group will be required to file an independent disclosure report within 30 days. Number 1443 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if that is pertaining to the contributor. MS. MILES replied that is correct. CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that he was talking about the candidate reporting names for contributions over $100 has not changed. MS. MILES replied that is correct. Number 1457 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if that information is publicly disclosed. MS. MILES stated that is correct. Number 1484 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if someone in aggregate, through an organization gives him less than $100 directly, he would not have to report them and their name would not be public. MS. MILES replied that is correct. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that the way the bill is written, in the course of keeping the records, that contributor's name would be publicized. Number 1560 MS. MILES replied that is the view of the commission. Number 1565 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said, "You said, for people contributing to groups if they give more than $100 or whatever the group does not have to report where the money comes from? What is the level of reporting by groups, money going into the group?" MS. MILES replied that if she said that, she mis-spoke. A contribution to a group is treated just as a contribution to a candidate. If someone were to give $100 or less to a group there name, although recorded on the groups records, is not made public on their campaign disclosure statement. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if someone were to contribute over $100 to a group their name will go down. MS. MILES stated that it is correct. Number 1579 CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that as this was written but if they only contribute $50 there name will public, which makes them different from other contributors. MS. MILES replied that is correct. Number 1589 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that it is public but it is not necessarily reported to APOC. It is just made available during normal business hours. Number 1650 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked for a roll call vote. Representatives Berkowitz, Croft and Green voted in favor of the amendment. Representatives Porter, James and Rokeberg voted against the amendment. Amendment 6 failed. Number 1653 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that he would like to propose an amendment on page 2, line 19-20 to delete the last sentence, "These documents and books of account are open to public inspection during normal business hours." REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that he could understand the need for an official governmental entity to look at this to ensure that there is no malfeasance but by having it open to public inspection any one could look at a company's business. He stated that as he understood the intent of this legislation, it is not to offer up the private parts of a union or a company for public inspection, it is to protect the individuals and their say in their paycheck. Number 1700 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked for a roll call vote. Representatives Berkowitz and Croft voted in favor of the amendment. Representatives Porter, James, Green and Rokeberg voted against the amendment. Amendment 7 failed. Number 1727 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked "Would it make it somewhat easier on the commission to have what we did, in other words to have approved by the commission rather than you guys having to design and distribute these forms." CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if he was referring to page 2, line 11. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT replied yes, if on line 11, to delete "prescribed" and insert "approved". Number 1743 MS. MILES stated that it would then require the individual companies to prepare their own forms and request the approval of the commission. She stated that she could not say which would be easier, the commission is in the business of prescribing forms but they can approve them too. Number 1770 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that it seems to her that the form would only have to be prescribed once, but if you have to approve it, that will have to be done several times. Number 1783 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to rescind the committee's action on Amendment 2. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT objected. He stated that it would be more flexible for the individuals to be able to do it, as long as it is not in a discriminatory or biased manner. Number 1818 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked for a roll call vote. Representatives Berkowitz and Croft voted against rescinding Amendment 2. Representatives Porter, James, Green and Rokeberg voted in favor of rescinding Amendment 2. Amendment 2 was rescinded. Number 1854 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Mr. Bennett what the inspiration for the bill is. MR. BENNETT replied that he would have to confess ignorance as he was not here when it was proposed last session and it was Joe Ambrose who monitored this legislation. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked, "And this GOPAC talking points?" Number 1903 MR. BENNETT replied that it just came in recently and he did not know why it has come in at this late date. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that he is troubled by the fact that the policy they are generating here is being dictated by outside forces. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that she objected. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that he objected to the objection. Number 1903 MR. BENNETT stated that he had only received the letter four days ago. Number 1910 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that the other day they passed a bill out of committee regarding the source of outside money having an impact on the legislature's policy decisions. He stated that it is a valid concern. Number 1932 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated that the bill that Representative Berkowitz is referring to is a bill that is concerned with identifying the sources of the money that is influencing Alaskans as opposed to making appearances that they were Alaskans that had the money. He stated that there is not any testimony that there is a relationship between that piece of information and this piece of legislation. He stated that to the extent that there is some philosophical influence on the bill is not a secret. He stated that the legislature adopts things from the outside all the time. Number 1967 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that he has not had time to read any of the information from GOPAC and he probably will not. Number 1977 MR. BENNETT stated that he could solely be blamed for bringing this information to the committee. He stated that Senator Taylor did not ask him to bring the information to the committee. Number 1996 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER made a motion to move CSSB 114(JUD) AM out of committee with the attached fiscal notes and with individual recommendations. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected. He stated that he is concerned with the public inspection. He stated that the intent of the bill is to ensure an employee or union member has the right to check off when and to whom their contributions are going, subsection (c) goes far beyond that intent. He stated that it is a transparent attempt to open up the private workings of company or a union to public inspection, which will have a chilling effect on their ability to participate in the political process. He stated that it is a huge problem. Number 2045 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated that he is upset that some of the amendments were not adopted because at the core of the bill there is no disagreement that there ought to be disclosure. He stated that this bill makes it onerous and difficult for working Alaskans to work together to effect the public process. He said, "The primary effect left is going to be big businesses and very wealthy people. I think that is where we are headed and I know that is were GOPAC wants us to go." He stated that it disturbs him to see such obvious partisan bill drafting, there is an obvious nationwide agenda to do this across the state. He asserted either way working Alaskans will have less of a say in the political process. Number 2105 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked for a roll call vote. Representatives Berkowitz and Croft voted in against the bill. Representatives Porter, James, Green and Rokeberg voted in favor of the bill. Chairman Green stated that CSSB 114(JUD) AM moved from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|