Legislature(2003 - 2004)
03/18/2004 02:15 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 447 - 2004 REVISORS BILL Number 0598 CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 447, "An Act making corrective amendments to the Alaska Statutes as recommended by the revisor of statutes; and providing for an effective date." [Before the committee was CSHB 447(STA).] Number 0585 PAM FINLEY, Revisor of Statutes, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, noted that in members' packets is a sectional analysis of HB 447 and two amendments. The bill, in general, is a cleanup bill, she remarked, that to the best of her knowledge has no policy changes in it - it merely makes conforming changes to statutes that have been amended. Of the two amendments, the first one, which comes at the request of the attorney general, cleans up statutes in light of Carlson v. C.F.E.C., 65 P.3d 851 (Alaska 2003)(Carlson III), which pertains to fishing fee differentials; in its decision, the Alaska Supreme Court has determined which part of current statute is valid and which part is not. She added that because the current statute became law at the request of the executive branch specifically for the Carlson case, "it makes sense to me to clean it up as they have requested." The second amendment, she relayed, merely alters one subsection that was missed "when we went from spousal equivalents to domestic partners." Number 0447 CHAIR McGUIRE made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 23- LS1377\I.1, Finley, 3/11/04, which read: Page 7, line 27, through page 8, line 9: Delete all material and insert: Insert "(C) [GENERAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES FOR GOVERNMENT SERVICES THAT ARE USED BY A PORTION OF THE POPULATION ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PRESENCE OF THE COMMERCIAL FISHING INDUSTRY, INCLUDING GOVERNMENT SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF MILITARY AND VETERANS' AFFAIRS, AND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES; (D)] capital costs directly supporting [EXPENDITURES TO SUPPORT] the commercial fishing industry [AS MEASURED BY ANNUAL DEPRECIATION OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE]; and (D) [(E)] expenditures to subsidize the construction and operation of salmon hatcheries [; AND (3) THE AMOUNT OF REVENUE FOREGONE BY THE STATE DUE TO THE CURRENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR COMMERCIAL FISHERIES IN THE STATE]." REPRESENTATIVE GARA objected for the purpose of discussion. He asked why the change proposed via Amendment 1 should be made to the revisor's bill. MS. FINLEY relayed that Section 11 of CSHB 447(STA) amends items that were missed in executive orders, and that AS 16.43.160(e) is an explanation of all the aspects of state government that could justify fee differentials between resident and non resident fishing licenses and entry permits. When subsection (e) was passed - at the time, the Carlson case was still ongoing - it was done so at the request of the executive branch, which wanted legislative support of its position as to what would constitute a legitimate basis for fee differentials between resident and nonresident. The Alaska Supreme Court looked at all of those items, said yes to some of the items and no to others, and decided what changes needed to be made. MS. FINLEY said that Amendment 1 reflects the Alaska Supreme Court's decision, that being that what is listed in the current subparagraph (C) - which relates to general government expenditures - is not specific enough; that the language in current subparagraph (D), "expenditures to support ... as measured by annual depreciation of public facilities and infrastructure" is not acceptable, though "capital costs directly supporting the commercial fishing industry" is an acceptable basis for a fee differential; and that the language in current paragraph (3), regarding the amount of revenue forgone by the state, was also unacceptable. Number 0277 REPRESENTATIVE GARA opined that these appear to be substantive changes that are properly the subjects of bills rather than a revisor's bill. MS. FINLEY remarked: That's one reason why I don't usually clean up statutes, because I figure the legislature might want to clean them up in [a] different way. In this particular case, the bracketed language ... could still be there [but] it can't be effective because the court has said it can't be effective, that ... it would not be constitutional to use those as bases. So in terms of substantive effect, there ... should be no substantive effect. We could leave the language in and it still wouldn't matter. So the only reason for taking it out is so that people that read the statute - but not the case notes - understand what is acceptable and what isn't. MS. FINLEY, in response to further questions, said that Carlson III was decided almost a year ago, and the Alaska Supreme Court "reversed and remanded on the issue of the hatcheries loan fund subsidy and they partially remand on the issue of capital costs for findings." Beyond that, she relayed, she is not familiar with the status of "that remand." CHAIR McGUIRE said she could think of a lot of statutes, particularly in the area of abortion and parental consent, that have been "repeatedly shot down" but are still in existence. "I could imagine the [House] floor fight on a revisor's bill if we were to do a similar type of exercise on them," she added. MS. FINLEY said she would be happy to withdraw Amendment 1; she'd merely felt the need to offer it because it came at the request of the attorney general and it was a reasonable request. "That's why I do not usually try to clean up the statutes to make them fit the court, because sometimes the legislature has different ideas about what they want to do," she relayed, adding that if the committee is uncomfortable with Amendment 1, she is fine with not adopting it. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would like to have the statutes be constitutional, suggested that the committee should adopt Amendment 1, and pointed out that if anyone objects to this change, Amendment 1 could be removed on the House floor or by the Senate. TAPE 04-40, SIDE A Number 0001 CHAIR McGUIRE said her concern revolves around whether the Carlson case is still going through the process and whether Amendment 1 would be codifying what the court has said now but which could change later. She indicated that she did not have a problem with adopting Amendment 1. REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked Ms. Finley whether she feels that what is being done via Amendment 1 is a proper subject for a revisor's bill. MS. FINLEY said she doesn't think that Amendment 1 makes a substantive change because the language it is deleting isn't applicable due to the court ruling. Amendment 1 is cleaning up a statute to match a court decision, though such a change would not usually be included in a revisor's bill because most statutes are passed by the legislature because the legislature wanted a change. The statute being altered by Amendment 1, however, came at the request of the executive branch. In conclusion, she remarked that Amendment 1 is properly the subject of a revisor's bill, though, again, she would not have suggested it and doesn't feel any need to push the issue. Number 0203 REPRESENTATIVE GARA removed his objection. Number 0214 CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether there were any further objections to Amendment 1. There being none, Amendment 1 was adopted. Number 0224 CHAIR McGUIRE made a motion to adopt Amendment 2, labeled 23- LS1377\I.2, Finley, 3/11/04, which read: Page 12, following line 3: Insert a new bill section to read: "* Sec. 24. AS 39.50.030(g) is amended to read: (g) The requirements in this section for disclosures related to a person's domestic partner [SPOUSAL EQUIVALENT] do not apply to an elected or appointed municipal officer." Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. Page 18, line 3: Delete "sec. 38" Insert "sec. 39" Page 19, line 3: Delete "sec. 38" Insert "sec. 39" Page 19, lines 22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 31: Delete "sec. 25" Insert "sec. 26" Page 20, line 1: Delete "sec. 25" Insert "sec. 26" Page 20, line 5: Delete "SECTION 25. Section 25" Insert "SECTION 26. Section 26" Page 20, line 8: Delete "sec. 41" Insert "sec. 42" Page 20, line 13: Delete "sec. 25" Insert "sec. 26" Page 20, line 14: Delete "sec. 41" Insert "sec. 42" Page 20, line 17: Delete "sec. 51" Insert "sec. 52" CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether there were any objections to Amendment 2. There being none, Amendment 2 was adopted. Number 0290 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that many years ago, the legislature used to receive a pamphlet detailing "court decisions, administrative decisions, regulations, and potentially statutes that may need amendment or change." He indicated that he would like to get the pamphlets from the last few years and then relay to the committee any suggestions for changes. MS. FINLEY mentioned that those pamphlets are produced by Legislative Legal and Research Services. CHAIR McGUIRE indicated that she did not have a problem with Representative Gruenberg following up on that issue. Number 0548 REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON moved to report CSHB 447(STA), as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHB 447(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|