Legislature(1993 - 1994)
02/24/1993 02:13 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 24, 1993
2:13 p.m.
TAPE HFC 93-31, Side 2, #000 - #538.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Larson called the House Finance Committee to order
at 2:13 p.m.
PRESENT
Co-Chair Larson
Co-Chair MacLean Representative Hoffman
Vice-Chair Hanley Representative Navarre
Representative Brown Representative Parnell
Representative Foster Representative Therriault
Representative Grussendorf
Representative Martin was absent from the meeting.
ALSO PRESENT
Sandy Nusbaum, Legislative Staff, Representative Gail
Phillips; Vincent Usera, Assistant Attorney General,
Department of Law.
SUMMARY INFORMATION
HJR 11 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the
State of Alaska relating to repeal of regulations
by the legislature.
HJR 11 was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a $2.2 thousand
dollar fiscal impact note by the Office of the
Lieutenant Governor, dated 2/1/93.
EO 85 Moving the bonding program that serves as security
for the collection of wages and payment for raw
fish from the Department of Labor to the
Department of Revenue.
EO 85 was placed in a House Finance Committee
Subommittee consisting of Representatives Hanley,
Parnell and Brown.
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 11
1
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State
of Alaska relating to repeal of regulations by the
legislature.
Co-Chair Larson noted that HJR 11 would allow the
Legislature to repeal regulations adopted by a state
department or agency by a joint resolution. The proposed
amendment would be placed on the ballot on the next general
election.
SANDY NUSBAUM, LEGISLATIVE STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE GAIL
PHILLIPS spoke in support of HJR 11. She noted that the
Lieutenant Governor has formally endorsed HJR 11 (Attachment
1). She presented written remarks on behalf of
Representative G. Phillips (Attachment 2). She noted that
HJR 11 would permit the Legislature to take action on
regulations promulgated by state agencies that may not
properly implement the intent of the laws passed by the
Legislature. She asserted that there is increasing evidence
that regulations go beyond conforming with laws passed by
the Legislature. She alleged that regulations many
times ignore the legislative directive or go beyond the
limits of what the legislature intended. She emphasized
that once regulations go into effect they have the force of
law, even though "no single person, elected by the voters,
has approved them."
Ms. Nusbaum observed that similar legislation passed the
Senate during the Seventeenth Alaska Legislature and
received support in the House. She noted that prior ballot
proposals did not sufficiently explain the initiative.
Co-Chair MacLean MOVED to report HJR 11 out of Committee
with individual recommendations and with the accompanying
fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HJR 11 was reported out of Committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with a $2.2 thousand dollar fiscal impact
note by the Office of the Lieutenant Governor, dated 2/1/93.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 85
Moving the bonding program that serves as security for
the collection of wages and payment for raw fish from
the Department of Labor to the Department of Revenue.
Co-Chair Larson noted that EO 85 would move the bonding
program that serves as security for the collection of wages
and payments for raw fish from the Department of Labor to
the Department of Revenue.
2
Representative Hoffman pointed out that AS 16.10.292 would
be removed by the Executive Order.
VINCENT USERA, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW
stressed that AS 16.10.292 requires the Department of Labor
to provide the Department of Revenue with certification that
the bonding had been accomplished. He asserted that once
the program is transferred the process would be unnecessary.
He stated that "it would be like Revenue certifying to
itself."
Mr. Usera assured Representative Hoffman that fisherman
would be protected by the bonding program. Bonding
requirements will not change.
Representative Grussendorf reiterated that AS 16.10.292 is
not included in EO 85. He asked if the Department of
Revenue is assuming that they have the ability to show
evidence of compliance. Mr. Usera affirmed that the
Department of Revenue would have evidence of compliance with
bonding requirements.
Representative Brown referred to a memorandum by Legislative
Counsel, dated 11/19/93 (Attachment 3). She stressed that
AS 16.10.292 prescribes the form by which the bond is
posted. She asserted that the removal of AS 16.10.292 has
resulted in a substantive change in law. She emphasized
that executive orders are not proper vehicles for
substantive changes. Mr. Usera replied that Legislative
Counsel has also said that there is no "practical effect"
of the dropping of AS 16.10.292.
Representative Brown recalled that previous testimony from
the Department of Revenue did not state that the statute was
not needed but emphasized that the Department intended to
comply with the spirit of AS 16.10.292 through regulation.
Representative Brown reiterated that AS 16.10.292 indicates
the bond form. She asserted that bond form is substantive.
Mr. Usera asserted that the intent of the program is to
protect the fisherman. He reiterated that the processor
would still have to post a bond. The bond will be held by
the Department of Revenue and used to pay claims.
Representative Brown asked if the form of bond is not
specified if the processor could choose the bond form.
Mr. Usera defined "form" as it is used in AS 16.10.292 to
mean a piece of paper that is used to supply data. He
asserted that "form" does not refer to the type of bond that
is used. Representative Brown disagreed. She noted that
3
Legal Counsel interpreted "form" to mean type of bond.
"This provision is beneficial because there are a couple of
ways in which a processor may comply with the bonding
requirement..." (Attachment 3).
Representative Hanley read AS 16.10.292. "A fish processor
or primary fish buyer... shall initially file evidence of
compliance with the bonding requirements of AS 16.10.290 -
AS 16.10.295, in the form prescribed by the commissioner."
He interpreted the statute's intent as demonstrating that
the processor has complied with the bond.
Members debated the effect of removing AS 16.10.292. Co-
Chair MacLean reiterated that Legislative Counsel concluded,
"that the elimination of AS 16.10.292 has no practical
effect on the ability of the commissioner of revenue to
enforce the fish processor bonding requirements... The
commissioner may adopt regulations that are reasonably
necessary to specify the manner and form by which a fish
processor demonstrates compliance with the bonding
requirements."
Mr. Usera stated that the intent of EO 85 is to transfer a
program from the Department of Labor to the Department of
Revenue. He noted that the Department of Revenue maintains
a similar program in licencing requirements. He stressed
the efficiency of consolidating functions.
Representative Brown referred to the House Resource
Committee's Letter of Intent. The letter states that,
"approval of Executive Order 85 in no way implies approval
of violation of the legal parameters of executive orders,
nor should it be construed to mean that any inappropriate
substantive changes proposed by executive order in the
future will be accepted." She suggested that EO 85 be
disapproved in order to demonstrate to the Administration
that substantive changes cannot be made in executive orders.
Members debated action on EO 85. Representative Parnell
suggested that EO 85 be moved with a Letter of Intent
similar to the House Resource Committee's. Representative
Grussendorf suggested that EO 85 be held in committee until
members further research the issue.
Co-Chair Larson placed EO 85 in a subcommittee consisting of
Representatives Hanley, Parnell and Brown.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 2:45 p.m.
4
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|