Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/17/2002 01:15 PM RES
* first hearing in first committee of referral
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 299-ALASKA PLACE NAMES [Contains discussion of HJR 32, the companion resolution] CO-CHAIR SCALZI announced the first order of business, HOUSE BILL NO. 299, "An Act providing for the naming and renaming of Alaska geographic features." Number 0089 REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER, following a request by the sponsor, moved to adopt [Version F, 22-LS1193\F, Kurtz, 4/11/02, as a work draft]. CO-CHAIR SCALZI announced that Version F was adopted. Number 0110 REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of HB 299, explained that many Alaska places have been named for people who have never been in the state. Suggesting many names are inappropriate, he cited an example of an 1880s expedition in Southeast Alaska that named a river after a person's high school drafting teacher; furthermore, members of the Harriman [Alaska] Expedition had reportedly sat on the ship in what became College Fiord and argued about whose alma mater the glaciers would be named after, whereas local people [whose ancestors] had been there for thousands of years, and others who had lived and worked in the area, had far more valid names for these features. He offered further examples, including his own experience involving "Bainbridge Passage." He then said the bill allows the naming commission, when commission members deem it appropriate under their policy, to rename features after traditional or local Alaska names - "hopefully, mostly Native names" - or after geographical features that are descriptive. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON reported that he'd met with the naming commission and that several members would like the authority to do this but are concerned about not having the resources. Therefore, page 3, line 14, contains a change such that [the commission] is no longer required to go out and research the names that were applied inappropriately, "at least by my criteria and theirs." Instead, it now says [the commission] can review a request for changes; people in an area who have what they believe is a more appropriate name can propose it to the naming commission, which "can take that up as a course of business, according to the priorities that they set and the criteria that they set." He added: I think this alleviates some of their concern about being overwhelmed by work. And if you all choose, I will ask you to zero out the fiscal note at the end of this, because they will just, under the committee substitute, be responding to requests for changes, ... not having to search the entire name base in Alaska to do it. And that still leaves all the flexibility I think we need for local folks to propose changes. Number 0460 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON explained that [HJR 32], his companion resolution, asks the USGS [U.S. Geological Survey, specifically, the United States Board on Geographic Names] to give deference to the names proposed by the naming commission [the Alaska Historical Commission]. Number 0500 REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER inquired about Representative Dyson's desire to zero out the fiscal note, asking how the public will know to weigh in, and how the commission will put out information and then alert people as to the changes. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON indicated that when someone wants a name now, there are procedures for new or commemorative ones, and the commission notifies people through its "existing channels." He remarked, "Folks that are paying attention know about these things." He suggested perhaps someone from the commission could advise members about publicizing locally when there is to be a name change. He added, "I hope ... you'll work with me, Representative Kapsner, to get out lots of publicity to folks and get ... people out there actively working on it - elders and historians - to work on it." Acknowledging the difficulty of getting money for new things, he stated his intention in the next budget cycle of getting some resources to [the commission], which doesn't have the resources to do the work it does already. Number 0618 REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER inquired about any potential private contributors. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said he hadn't thought of it, but it's a very good idea. REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER asked who else supports this, such as the Alaska Historical Society or regional entities. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON offered his sense that the commission is overwhelmed with its current work. He said no one had argued against it, and that every Native person he'd talked to about it was excited about it. He mentioned the difficulty of getting the work done, plus the philosophical problem in that the USGS, which is the "depositor and the arbiter of names," doesn't like this kind of process because of not wanting duplication of names on maps, coastal pilot [navigational books], and similar documents. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON explained that the bill anticipates a transition period of perhaps 20 years; the next time documents and maps are published, they'll have two names [for each renamed] feature. He offered his belief that the process is underway for the [change from Mount McKinley to Mount Denali], for example. He said he finds most of the Native names in Alaska "charmingly descriptive" and that although he'd be glad for the name to be "in the Native pronunciation," he'd like to have a translation in parentheses. Number 0855 REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER brought attention to page 4, subsection (c), where new proposed language read: The commission shall establish a policy regarding the use of English translations of non-English words and whether translations, where included, should be considered a part of the official name. When the official name under this section differs from the official federal name, both official names shall be used, with the federal name in parentheses. REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER said that, to her, the foregoing implies not wanting a Native name. She remarked that she likes [the bill] in concept, but worries about the details. She asked whether Representative Dyson intends for the Native words to be on the map. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON answered yes, but suggested perhaps modifying the bill to make that clear. He added that he wants to give deference to the commission and not to "dictate the details exactly." He expressed hope that the commission will [develop] a policy that makes sense. He specified, "I never intended to not use the Native words." REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER highlighted the importance of honoring the Native villages in her region that go by Native names. Number 1005 JUDY BITTNER, Chief/State Historic Preservation Officer, Office of History and Archeology, Alaska Historical Commission, Division of Parks & Outdoor Recreation, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), testified via teleconference. She began by thanking Representative Dyson for meeting with the Alaska Historical Commission in Juneau; she said the commission had discussed this in detail. Noting that the commission serves as the state review board to the [United States Board on Geographic Names under the USGS], she said that whenever there is a proposal for a name change or a name for an unnamed feature, it goes before the commission, which applies "the USGS board guidelines as well as the other guidelines that they proposed and adopted in 1998." MS. BITTNER told the committee that the commission doesn't support the bill. The commission believes it can address the interests and concerns about use of local and Native names under the existing process, which contains guidelines for [commemorative], descriptive, and Native names. The commission believes this bill isn't necessary and that it unnecessarily complicates the process and will lead to duplicate maps. Ms. Bittner noted that another process in place allows for appeal of decisions. Number 1141 MS. BITTNER explained that the commission was given this responsibility in 1993 through an executive order. At that time there was a backlog of about 70 place names; the commission was able to bring those up to date and to review 257 place names. There have only been disagreements on 7 of those decisions between the state board and the United States board, she reported; she doesn't believe, as the bill implies, "that we have ongoing conflict between the state and the federal government in terms of mapping and place names." She explained: At the time we received this program in 1993, we received no funding and no staff or anything to administer it. ... We have a minimum program. We respond to the proposals that come in. We write the letters to the local governments, ... Native corporations, the landowners, and other organizations that have brought ... to our attention that they are interested in name proposals, such as the mountaineering groups. We do not have ... the funding or ability to hold public hearings or publish, in any way, the names once they are finished, other than on our web site. MS. BITTNER said the commission doesn't think it is appropriate for the state to "decide and go around ... the state to change the names." She said it's a long history, and how the U.S. has established names over time has changed, through policy; names in the state reflect that. She emphasized that if there is a change [desired] by local residents in any area, it is possible under existing guidelines to change that name. "Just arbitrary changes are not supported, and I don't think will make it through the federal board," she added. Number 1311 MS. BITTNER also expressed concern about ending up with two sets of maps: one state map and one federal map. She questioned whether the federal government would put either state or federal names in parentheses, and said it isn't the federal policy to put phrases on maps, "just because of the map clutter." If there are two sets of maps, it will be confusing for search-and- rescue personnel, scientists, and people doing business and conducting research in Alaska. Furthermore, there will be a fiscal note for DNR to set up these separate [sets] of maps and make those available, as well as for having a staff person on the commission staff to handle all the requirements of these name-change proposals. MS. BITTNER closed by reiterating that there is a process and procedure in place. "We have dealt with a number of Native name proposals," she said, mentioning recent proposals for the Pribilof Islands for which the Native names were considered and adopted by the state board. "So I do not think that we need in statute a directive to use translations, ... or otherwise, ... what kind of names," she said. "I think it's best left up to the ... guidelines and policy, which were developed through a public process by the ... commission." Number 1446 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked what the policy is now, with regard to which language is used, if there is a Native Alaskan name. MS. BITTNER answered that stated in the policy is that for a Native American name, the commission will consider it if the name is in "common local usage and that use is documented; that the name is pronounceable without considerable difficulty; that the name is linguistically appropriate to the area in which it is to be applied; and the landowner, if on Native land, supports the proposed name in writing." Number 1526 MS. BITTNER, in response to a question from Representative Kerttula about where the bill addresses "phrases," referred to page 4, subsection (c), which says the commission shall establish a policy regarding English translations and [whether translations], where included, should be part of the official name. She said that "part of the official name" and translation would be part of the proposal and how it goes forward, and then would become part of the name. She interpreted that section to say, "We are to request that the phrase be part of the name." She added, "And just in terms of maps and map clutter that's on the map itself, ... it's just not practical and would not work." MS. BITTNER encouraged having place-name studies and funding "the Alaska Native language center and some of the other groups that are actively pursuing place-name studies." She highlighted the importance of having a way to get at that information, particularly as elders in the Native communities pass away, taking with them the language and language use. She pointed out that it is in place-name books that one can find out that information; it doesn't have to be on the official state or federal map. Number 1614 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked what was on the map Representative Dyson had used for Bainbridge Passage. She said it sounds as if there already are maps that have both names. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON clarified that another guidebook had contained the local name and its translation; it wasn't on the map. Number 1653 REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER asked Ms. Bittner, with regard to the criteria she had listed, what the guidelines are for "pronounceable." She said half of the villages in her own region arguably could be called unpronounceable, and yet people still use them. She also cited Dzantik'i Heeni Middle School in Juneau as an example where there had been controversy over giving it that Tlingit name because many people found it unpronounceable. She cited a further example. MS. BITTNER answered that it reflects "guidance from the federal guidelines, and because of all those examples you just gave, just about anything is pronounceable." She added, "As we worked through the Pribilof names and worked with ... the Native corporation, ... proposers there, we think that people - particularly in that area and the use area - can and will learn the ... names, particularly if it's in local use." She said it isn't a very high bar. REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER remarked that she thought it would be an "easy out" if someone wanted one. MS. BITTNER replied that it would be, but the commission is [composed of] citizen members from around the state who take this very seriously; they are very knowledgeable and have spent a lot of time in Alaska. "I think it is a really good citizen sounding board, and ... represents lots of different points of view," she said, adding that she is comfortable that there is a citizens' commission, rather than just a state office that makes these decisions. She suggested it ensures that many points of view in the public are brought forward. "And they're very sensitive to ... the Native place names," she added. Number 1781 REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER asked whether Ms. Bittner thought Representative Dyson's idea of a transition period might help with her concerns, or whether it just isn't enough. MS. BITTNER replied: No, I do find this confusing. I do not support a separate set of names on state maps. I think Alaska has used the USGS maps ... for kind of the basis for their commerce and science and research, and I think it's used ... for navigation, search and rescue. I don't see it [as] necessary, and I think that there's so few times when there is a difference of opinion between the state and the federal government that requiring this kind of separate set of maps is not necessary. And even this transitional time will transition to two sets of maps, and I think we end up in a place we don't want to be. Number 1846 REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER asked whether the USGS map would just supersede an Alaska map and take precedence, however. MS. BITTNER answered that she believed it would create confusion within the state. She reiterated her preference that there be place-name studies so that people would know the different names used by different people, including different groups of Natives that might use different names for one place. She mentioned perhaps documenting them on maps, but not necessarily on official state maps. CO-CHAIR SCALZI called an at-ease at 1:42 p.m. He called the meeting back to order at 1:45 p.m. Number 1932 REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked Representative Dyson whether he believes this bill would require two [sets] of maps. He asked about "deleting the possibility of two maps and have a transition period." REPRESENTATIVE DYSON replied that he'd never intended that there be duplicate documents or maps. He noted that the last [sentence] of the bill says, "When the official name under this section differs from the official federal name, both official names shall be used, with the federal name in parentheses." He indicated the bill drafter had added the phrase, "with the federal name in parentheses." Representative Dyson said: If we need to have the state name in parentheses during a five- or fifty-year transition period, that's fine with me. I just want both names recorded, and to begin the process of giving deference to Alaska names, instead of hundreds of people who never even thought about this place being commemorated and cast in stone in our names. Number 1998 CO-CHAIR SCALZI requested confirmation that the bill is just for nominations through the commission process, which already occurs, but that it would mandate [action] if there were a nomination. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON conveyed a high degree of respect for Ms. Bittner and the job she has done, adding that much of her concern is well justified. He indicated his intent of getting started [with renaming]. He offered his reading of the law that [the commission] isn't authorized to begin the process of renaming, but will consider a change if the current name is derogatory [towards] a racial, ethnic, gender, or religious group; if the current name is duplicative or causes confusion; or if evidence of extensive local support by authorities and residents is provided. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said he wants to put in statute that [the commission] has authority to consider name changes "because they are inappropriate, because they don't reflect Alaskan character and people who've made an investment in Alaska and so on." He added, "I think Ms. Bittner is right that they do ... have authority if it has ... extensive local support, and I'm wanting to strengthen their case ... in commemorating Alaskan contributions and local usage." REPRESENTATIVE DYSON told members that the federal government believes it is "the czar of all names," and believes that if it has a particular name on its documents, the name should remain. Representative Dyson said he wants to start a transition period, and that the accompanying resolution encourages the federal government, in contrast to its longstanding policy, to give deference to the Alaska naming commission's recommendations. Number 2183 REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE commended Representative Dyson for even challenging the legislature to consider this issue and to consider the honor that names bring. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON mentioned what he called the arrogance of explorers in renaming features that local people had already named. REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE remarked that there already is confusion over names because of local names or nicknames for features that have official names on maps. Number 2359 JOAN ANTONSON, Alaska Historical Commission, Division of Parks & Outdoor Recreation, Department of Natural Resources, testified via teleconference. She suggested that private mapmakers might be willing to put in names and their translations in parentheses in order to help build a case for a reason to change names used by both the state and federal governments. She said the federal government adheres to six principles; the most difficult for the state is the recognition of only one official name for a feature. CO-CHAIR SCALZI thanked Ms. Antonson, noting that the charts from NOAA [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration] are federal ones. Number 2454 REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER asked whether Mount Denali is still officially Mount McKinley. MS. BITTNER answered in the affirmative. CO-CHAIR SCALZI asked whether this bill would help change that. MS. BITTNER said it would make no difference. She added, "The Ohio delegation introduces a bill in Congress at the start of every legislative session to keep the names. And when there's legislation pending, the U.S. board will not consider ... a proposed name change." Number 2498 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked how often Native Alaskan names are proposed and then either accepted or rejected. MS. BITTNER replied that last year two Tlingit place names in the Glacier Bay area, for Glacier Bay and the Inian Islands, were forwarded and are under consideration at the U.S. board. In addition, she said, "We were working with folks in the Chevak area, but they chose to withdraw ... the proposals for about 54 names and do some more grassroots work for agreement with the neighboring communities on names, and for agreement even within the village." Ms. Bittner reported that she also has worked with people in the North Slope Borough who are working on place names and trying to resolve differences in spelling and pronunciation among some of the different groups in that area. She said, "If they do ever finish their work, we may see 1,200 Native-name proposals." With regard to the Pribilof Islands, she indicated the commission is working on about 70 names for that area. She explained: The federal government has never done large-scale maps, like 1:25,000-scale maps, in great detail for the islands. And since they were, they wanted to work with the community and with the state and federal boards on recognizing locally used and locally known names, many of which are Native names that have been proposed. CO-CHAIR SCALZI asked whether anyone in the audience wished to testify on the bill; there was no response. Number 2600 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON informed Ms. Bittner that [Version F] removes the requirement [that the commission] search out names, and puts it in the position of just responding to those brought before the commission, in deference to her valid concern about the workload and so forth. He said he sees the legislation now as doing two things: the resolution [HJR 32] "hopefully will start something that might spread that would give more flexibility in making name changes"; in addition, this would be a policy statement that Alaskans want to move towards having geographic names that honor Alaskans, rather than being "the sometimes somewhat arrogant imposition of kind of an invading culture that was very insensitive." He said he sees it more as a policy statement "strengthening your ability to come up with your own policy and regulations for making name changes when you all believe it's appropriate." He asked, "Does that give you any comfort?" MS. BITTNER replied, "I think we have those authorities right now and that our policies address that ... as it currently stands. I think ... Section 3, directing us to use names in parentheses, ... should be removed." CO-CHAIR SCALZI closed public testimony. Number 2764 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA offered conceptual Amendment 1, on page 4 [beginning at line 4 of subsection (c)]: "something in the nature of 'the commission shall use the original language for chosen names', and then maybe allow them to set a policy on using the English translations along with it." She indicated the need to perhaps check with Ms. Bittner for more proper wording, noting that the statutes say things like "using Native language writing systems that are accepted by the university." She also indicated the theory behind her amendment is to use "the original Native language". REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER suggested not using "original". REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA corrected the amendment to say, "use the Native language for chosen names." She then clarified conceptual Amendment 1 as she had just amended it: It would be, "The commission shall use the Native language for chosen names and"; then it would continue as it is; then, "The commission shall establish a policy regarding the use of the English translation", ... and it would continue on. So they would have the Native language, but they could set a policy about using translations. CO-CHAIR SCALZI offered his understanding, then, that it could be the original Native language, it could be a translation, or it could remain as it is. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA replied, "Actually, it would be the Native language for sure. And then maybe there would be a translation included, probably in parentheses." Number 2913 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON spoke to conceptual Amendment 1 and his intention with the legislation. He said he'd thought about these issues, and wants to give as much flexibility as possible to the commission, its policies, and regulations, "because they're really experienced." For example, he doesn't want to force the renaming of Juneau if someone proposes the Native name and its use has been documented. [Not on the tape, but taken from the Gavel to Gavel recording, is that unless there is good cause, his intention is to have the default be the Native or local name.] TAPE 02-32, SIDE B Number 2967 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said she understood the sponsor's concern. She noted that the language had been changed so that the commission would review requests and that [changes] aren't mandatory; that protection therefore is still in the statute. She also said she wasn't positive whether the section being amended was only for new names or was for renamings as well. She added that she felt comfortable with [the commission's] having flexibility for reviewing the requests, and that there isn't a mandate [to change a name]; therefore, she felt comfortable with the amendment. In response to Co-Chair Scalzi, she reiterated her amendment, clarifying that the name would have to be a Native name, but it would be for a chosen name. "They don't have to choose this name and, moreover, ... the commission's just reviewing the request for changes," she added. Number 2860 MS. BITTNER brought attention to Section 2, subsection (b) [page 3], which says [beginning on line 18], "The commission shall consider using Alaska Native place names for geographic features in the state [THAT HAVE NOT PREVIOUSLY BEEN NAMED]". She asked whether that covers it, since it already is in the existing [statutory] language. CO-CHAIR SCALZI said it probably does. MS. BITTNER noted that that subsection goes on about the Native writing systems. REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER said it is permissive, since it says "shall consider", whereas [conceptual Amendment 1, as amended] says "shall use" the Native language. REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT pointed out that line 13 under that subsection says "shall select names" [that have a direct connection with Alaska or Alaska's peoples]. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said there are only about three standards. REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER concurred that there are only three standards now. CO-CHAIR SCALZI called an at-ease at 2:09 p.m. He called the meeting back to order at 2:11 p.m. Number 2797 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA withdrew conceptual Amendment 1. She said she doesn't think it actually belongs in that section. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA moved to adopt Amendment 2 for discussion purposes, acknowledging that the sponsor didn't agree with it. She told members: I don't think that this section that we had it in was the right place. I do think - and it was Ms. Bittner, as she points out - on page 3, at line 18 [Section 2, subsection (b)], the language says now, "The commission shall consider using Alaska Native place names [specifically, "names that have a direct connection with Alaska or Alaska's peoples"], and if we wanted to make it mandatory, we would say, "The commission shall use Alaska Native place names". Number 2760 REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT objected for discussion purposes. CO-CHAIR SCALZI also objected, saying it restricts the ability of the commission to also consider names of early pioneers who may not be Native. He said he didn't believe it allowed latitude. Requesting a roll call vote, he specified that the conceptual amendment would change line 18 to say, "The commission shall use Alaska Native place names". A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Kapsner and Kerttula voted for conceptual Amendment 2. Representatives Fate, Chenault, and Scalzi voted against it. [Representatives Masek, Green, Stevens, and McGuire were absent.] Therefore, conceptual Amendment 2 failed by a vote of 2-3. REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER offered Amendment 3, relating to language in Section 2, page 3, [beginning on] line 14, that read: The commission shall review requests for changes to existing official names of geographic features to identify the names that do not have a direct connection with Alaska or Alaska's peoples, review alternative names that have been used for the places, and rename the places with names that have a direct connection with Alaska or Alaska's peoples. REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER expressed concern that without a fiscal note, she wasn't sure how the Alaska Historical Commission would find the manpower or resources to do this. [Therefore, she later specified that her amendment would change "shall" to "may" on line 14.] Number 2641 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON responded that it is a legitimate problem, but that the commission has very limited staff now, and is in the business of responding to names that come before them for changes, for commemorative purposes, and so forth. Surmising that there would be more requests for name changes if the bill passes, he stated his intention of trying to get another staff position [for the commission] next year, in the next budget cycle. REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER inquired about changing the "shall" to "may" in light of that, on line 14 [so that it would read "may review requests"] or having a delayed effective date. She asked what the sponsor envisioned as the timeline for the commission to complete this work. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON answered that the work will never be completed. This process will go on for a long, long time; it is just a process that the legislature would be authorizing [the commission] to give more attention to. He said he would choose to leave it "shall". He explained, "[If] some group proposes a name that's more appropriate than an existing name, ... I want [the commission] at some point, in the priorities that they decide within their own policy, to consider that. And I trust them to use a good sense of priorities." Number 2555 REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER withdrew [Amendment 3], specifying that it was to change "shall" to "may" in light of the zero fiscal note. REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER asked Ms. Bittner what would happen if the bill passed without appropriate funding. MS. BITTNER replied that she'd have to discuss it with the commission and incorporate the directives and mandates into the policy; there would have to be public review of the policy, as well as alerting those affected - such as [the Department of] Public Safety - that this is coming. She added, "We will do the best we can, since we don't have staff and it's never been funded. We can't be very active at it, but it will be on the books, and when we do get proposals, we will have to take the direction that is in this law." REPRESENTATIVE DYSON nonetheless encouraged the committee to zero the existing fiscal note out. Number 2465 REPRESENTATIVE FATE moved to report CSHB 299 [version 22- LS1193\F, Kurtz, 4/11/02] out of committee with individual recommendations and "the suggested zero fiscal note." REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER objected, specifying that it was because of the zero fiscal note. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA clarified that she supports the idea of the legislation, but having heard Ms. Bittner's testimony, believes the commission deserves funds to carry it out. A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Fate, Chenault, and Scalzi voted to move the bill from committee. Representatives Kapsner and Kerttula voted against it. [Representatives Green, McGuire, Stevens, and Masek were absent.] Therefore [because a majority of the members did not vote to report it from committee] CSHB 299(RES) failed to move out of the House Resources Standing Committee by a vote of 3-2. [The committee's action in failing to move the bill out of committee was rescinded later in the meeting.] HJR 32-FEDERAL PLACE NAMES Number 2359 CO-CHAIR SCALZI announced the next order of business, HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 32, Encouraging the United States Board on Geographic Names to adopt place name changes proposed by the Alaska Historical Commission. [There was a motion to adopt HJR 32, but it was already before the committee.] CO-CHAIR SCALZI asked whether anyone wished to testify; there was no response. He then specifically asked Ms. Bittner whether she wished to testify. JUDY BITTNER, Chief/State Historic Preservation Officer, Office of History and Archeology, Alaska Historical Commission, Division of Parks & Outdoor Recreation, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), offered via teleconference to answer questions and informed members that her testimony [in opposition to HB 299 that day] covered this resolution as well. CO-CHAIR SCALZI noted that the resolution speaks to the issue the committee had just addressed [HB 299]. He read from the "Be it resolved" clause [page 2 of HJR 32]. Number 2258 REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER moved to report HJR 32 out of committee with individual recommendations and the attached zero fiscal note. Number 2248 REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, offered his belief that without the bill [HB 299, Version F, which had just failed to move from committee], the resolution was moot. He therefore encouraged the committee not to pass it. CO-CHAIR SCALZI called an at-ease from 2:24 p.m. to 2:25 p.m. Number 2211 CO-CHAIR SCALZI asked whether there was any objection to the motion. There being no objection, HJR 32 was moved out of the House Resources Standing Committee.