Legislature(1995 - 1996)
01/30/1996 10:40 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
JANUARY 30, 1996
10:40 A.M.
TAPE HFC 96 - 21, Side 1, #000 - end.
TAPE HFC 96 - 21, Side 2, #000 - end.
TAPE HFC 96 - 22, Side 1, #000 - end.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Mark Hanley called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 10:40 A.M.
PRESENT
Co-Chair Hanley Representative Martin
Co-Chair Foster Representative Mulder
Representative Brown Representative Navarre
Representative Grussendorf Representative Kohring
Representative Kelly Representative Therriault
Representative Parnell was not present for the meeting.
ALSO PRESENT
Mark Tumeo, (Testified via teleconference), Antarctica; Kate
Wattum, (Testified via teleconference), Fairbanks; Daniel
Collison, Board Member, Southeast Alaska Gay and Lesbian
Alliance, Juneau; Stephen Jacquier, (Testified via
teleconference), Self, Anchorage; Lynn Stimler, (Testified
via teleconference), Executive Director,American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU), Anchorage; Tom Owens, (Testified via
teleconference), Attorney, Representing University of
Alaska, Anchorage; Mildred Boesser, Juneau City and Borough
Human Rights Commission, Juneau; Susan Hargis, Chair,
Southeast Alaska Gay and Lesbian Alliance (SEAGLA), Juneau;
Marsha Buck, Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and
Gays (PFLAG), Juneau; Sara Boesser, Board Member, the
Committee for Equality, Juneau; Pam LaBolle, President,
Alaska State Chamber of Commerce -Juneau.
SUMMARY
HB 226 An Act permitting the provision of different
retirement and health benefits to employees based
on marital status.
CS HB 226 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with a fiscal note
by the Department of Administration.
HB226
1
HOUSE BILL 226
"An Act permitting the provision of different
retirement and health benefits to employees based on
marital status."
MARK TUMEO, ANTARCTICA, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE),
testified on HB 226 and the proposed amendment by
Representative Kelly. He stated that providing health
benefits to the domestic partner of an employee would not
represent a threat to the State's economy, the social
fabric, marriage or society. He noted that the University
of Alaska has already instituted domestic partner benefits
without major administrative or economic impact. There has
been less that a .5% increase to benefit costs.
Mr. Tumeo agreed that the bill was "highly" controversial.
It is a bill that deals with the definition of relationship;
a bill which touches the core of every Alaskan's concept of
fair play and morality. He added, the arguments presented
to support the bill were emotional and that those persons
opposing the bill are at a distinct disadvantage. Mr. Tumeo
questioned if "emotional moralism" was a politically
successful basis for legislation. He felt that the proposed
legislation would attempt to legislate in favor of one group
of people--married people--over another group--non-married
people.
Mr. Tumeo thought that passage of the legislation would be
another example of the government intruding in personal
affairs. He urged Committee members to "kill" the bill as
he felt that it would gut the Human Rights Act in an attempt
to enforce one type of family structure over another. [Copy
of testimony on file].
Representative Brown asked the current status of the court
suit. Mr. Tumeo explained that it was pending before the
Supreme Court and that a decision would be issued in Spring,
1996.
Representative Martin voiced strong support of the
traditional family rights, stating that the core issue was
being degraded. Mr. Tumeo explained that information
resulting from the 1990 census indicates that less than 40%
of the children in our country are raised in a two parent
home where one parent stays home. He emphasized the fact
that there are many different family structures.
Mr. Tumeo responded to a question regarding the court brief.
He stated it was not the legal argument which was supported
or presented by the Supreme Court. He acknowledged that
there should be a "tight" fence around who could qualify for
2
the benefits. Representative Therriault stated that
information needed clarification by the Human Rights Act.
Mr. Tumeo added, following the Court's decision, the law
will be eliminated or expanded reflecting the interpretation
of that decision. He added, it would be premature to act
before the Supreme Court decision, entering into a
possibility of amending a critical law.
Representative Therriault voiced his concern that no limit
existed, pointing out when the Human Rights Act was enacted,
it was not anticipated the need that this circumstance would
exist.
Representative Kelly spoke to the amendment adopted by the
House HESS Committee as proposed by Mr. Tumeo. He
questioned isolating the concept of "domestic partnerships",
suggesting that the criteria proposed would allow anyone to
buy into or out of the program. Mr. Tumeo explained various
approaches to domestic partnerships which can be legally
binding. He added, as with any benefit or condition upon
which a benefit is given, the conditions can change. Once
the status changes, the individual would be responsible to
report that. He continued, there are plenty of stipulations
to address the fraud concerns, and that the University does
have a qualification waiting period. Mr. Tumeo acknowledged
Representative Kelly's concern agreeing that some
relationships are not long lasting and pointing out that was
true of marriage's also.
Representative Kelly disagreed. He stated that a person
could get into and out of domestic partnerships more
quickly; a domestic partnership ends when the partners stop
living together. Representative Kelly added that the non-
traditional relationship will leave behind broken marriages,
broken neighborhoods and broken families. Mr. Tumeo
countered that a domestic partnership does not threaten a
marriage. Non-traditional relationships can be entered into
and exited just as a marriage can. Mr. Tumeo concluded that
relationships of either type should not be of legislative
interest.
Representative Kelly elaborated that the changes made to the
legislation in the two previous committee's could threaten
partners within a domestic partnership. Representative
Kelly explained the origin of the legislation, noting that a
recent court decision ordered the University of Alaska to
extend health insurance coverage and benefits to domestic
partners. HB 226 would address the decision by reasserting
the rights of employers, including the State, to exclude
domestic partners from health insurance benefits, unless
they choose otherwise. He added, it was his intent that HB
3
226 reduce the uncertainty employers now face in planning
group insurance programs.
Representative Kelly added, the court decision leaves
unclear who is, and who is not, entitled to family benefits.
HB 226 would seek to close the door on a possible onslaught
of domestic partnerships created just to gain benefits.
Representative Kelly urged the Committee's support of the
original legislation or the House Finance Committee version.
KATE WATTUM, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), FAIRBANKS,
spoke against HB 226 which she felt would specifically write
"discrimination" into law. She emphasized that the proposed
legislation is about "emotion" and "people", and that people
will be hurt with its passage. She thought that the
extended benefits program should be issued to all family
members who qualify.
Representative Martin asked if Ms. Wattum's partner
currently had a health package. Ms. Wattum explained that
her partner does currently have coverage and that it is
supplemented with her own policy through the University.
Representative Martin expounded his theories on the legality
of marriage and the rights which come with that choice.
Representative Martin added that the State should not be
required to pay for equal rights in domestic partnerships.
Ms. Wattum remarked that all she was requesting was equal
access to a benefit which every other married employee of
the University has access to for their spouses and children.
Representative Kelly pointed out that if the court decision
was held and that domestic partnerships were created, Ms.
Wattum would be paid more than the single person who is
employed at the same work place. He emphasized that the act
would create a new class of people. Discussion followed
between Ms. Wattum and Representative Kelly regarding this
"new" class of people.
DANIEL COLLISON, BOARD MEMBERS, SOUTHEAST ALASKA GAY AND
LESBIAN ALLIANCE (SEAGLA), JUNEAU, distributed a letter to
Committee members from Bob Miller, Director, Office of
Public Affairs, University of Alaska. [Attachment #1]. Mr.
Collison spoke against HB 226 and/or in support of the HESS
version of the legislation.
He pointed out that the University has received less than 1%
increase in plan enrollments. Mr. Collison referenced the
letter [Attachment #1], clarifying that to date only 44
employees have registered their partners in the domestic
health plan. One third of these individuals are in same sex
4
relationships; additionally, nine children were registered.
He observed that the recognition of domestic partnerships
would not place an undue burden on the State. Mr. Collison
urged the passage of HB 226 with the HESS amendment.
Representative Martin reiterated his concerns recognizing
non-traditional families and relationships. Mr. Collison
reminded Representative Martin that the question before the
Committee was access to the benefits on economic grounds.
He stressed the issue is the court has indicated that it is
wrong to discriminate against domestic partnerships.
(Tape Change, HFC 96-21, Side 2).
Mr. Collison reiterated that the Supreme Court is due to
rule on that issue this spring.
Representative Therriault felt that the court decision does
not address the main concern of discrimination. Mr.
Collison interjected that the court decision was being
decided on access to benefits. A marriage relationship
carries with it inter-financial legal obligations. He
pointed out that he could have a relationship with a man and
have those same responsibilities. The court is trying to
clarify that there can exist two different types of
contractual relationships; one entered into by marriage and
another one entered into privately by two individuals,
recognized as a domestic partner relationship. The court is
not creating different classes of people, but instead
interpreting why certain people are being denied benefits.
STEPHEN JACQUIER, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE),
REPRESENTING SELF, ANCHORAGE, spoke strongly against passage
of the proposed legislation.
Representative Grussendorf advised that the law in Alaska
currently is based on the decision of Judge Green, who
indicated the action attempted by the University of Alaska
was discriminatory in nature. He reminded Committee members
that the case was currently before the Supreme Court on
appeal with a decision soon to be made. Representative
Grussendorf summarized that the HESS version of the
legislation does support the opinion of Judge Green.
LYNN STIMLER, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION (ACLU), ANCHORAGE,
explained that the issue of HB 226 should not exist while it
is pending before the Supreme Court. She pointed out that
the ACLU is opposed to the original HB 226. She noted that
it is outside the spirit and plain language of the Alaska
Constitution and the Alaska Human Rights Act.
5
Ms. Stimler addressed the economics, noting that private
employers extend these type of benefits because it is good
business practice. Employers know and understand that
today's work force is comprised of many people living in
many different types of situations. The Alaska Constitution
is more broadly protective of the individuals civil rights
and liberties than the U.S. Constitution is.
Ms. Stimler reiterated that the ACLU believes the State is
"out of place" debating these concerns while the issue is
before the Supreme Court. To adopt language amending law to
specifically allow discrimination because of marital status
is against the spirit and plain language of the Alaska Human
Rights Act. She urged the Legislature not to be involved in
such a discriminating policy.
TOM OWENS, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ATTORNEY,
REPRESENTING THE UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA - ANCHORAGE, commented
that the provisions of A.S. 18:80 only applies to public
employers. The State anti- discrimination laws have been
made inapplicable to qualify for benefits or plans in the
private sector. He added, it is important to note that
Judge Green's decision was not based on any constitutional
analysis.
Mr. Owens added, the purpose of the proposed amendment, A.S.
18:80, was to confirm the statutory scheme which has existed
in the State of Alaska for many years. This scheme allows
public employers to discriminate in the provision of
benefits on the basis of marital status or parental status.
He continued, the purpose of the proposed legislation would
confirm that the Legislature never intended to have the
provisions of A.S. 18:80 prohibit the provision of health
care benefits on the bases of marital or parental status.
Representative Grussendorf asked if the bill would affect
the private sector. Mr. Owens replied that Judge Green did
not get to the constitutional issues because she didn't need
to. She based her decision upon reading the language of
A.S. 18:80, adding that the courts make their decision on
the lowest level of consideration. The applicability of
A.S. 18:80 to the private sector would be based on the
federal court ruling in 1974. The State antidiscrimination
laws do not apply to the provisions of benefits under a
qualified plan in the private sector.
Representative Martin pointed out the amenities available to
University teachers, health care, tuition and benefit
waivers. He reminded Committee members that the Legislature
continues to be responsible for the University budget.
Representative Therriault questioned how Judge Green got
6
beyond statute areas which mandate the differentiation. Mr.
Owens responded that Judge Green made her decision through a
written opinion. His comments on her decision are based
upon a reading of that decision. Judge Green did not make
any comments regarding the other statutory provisions that
either mandate or permit discrimination based on marital
status. After Judge Green made her decision, the University
made a motion to reconsider, pointing out to Judge Green the
existence of the other statutes which level the Legislative
intent to file or require discrimination provision of
benefits based on marital status. Judge Green refused to
consider those arguments and thus continued with her
original decision.
MILDRED BOESSER, JUNEAU CITY & BOROUGH HUMAN RIGHTS
COMMISSION, JUNEAU, provided Committee members with a Human
Rights Commission, City and Borough of Juneau (CBJ) Position
Paper on HB 226. [Attachment #2]. She noted that the CBJ
Committee opposes HB 226 because it discriminates against
committed partners to the detriment of Alaska and in
violation of the Constitution.
Mrs. Boesser understood that the legislation resulted from a
fear to undermine the traditional family unit, whereas in
reality, the concept of "domestic partners" is an attempt to
enlarge the concept of family to include non-traditional
groupings which exist everywhere already. She recommended
that this group is in need of the family support and the
benefits that traditional families enjoy.
Mrs. Boesser acknowledged that we all live in a changing
society and that many different types of families have
emerged. She encouraged supporting people that are in
loving, stable relationships, even when that picture does
not include our own view of family.
Co-Chair Hanley asked if CBJ allows domestic partners to
share in benefits. Mrs. Boesser replied they do not at this
time.
Representative Kelly pointed out that the Alaska Human
Rights Commission did not support Judge Greens decision.
SUSAN HARGIS, CHAIR, SOUTHEAST ALASKA GAY AND LESBIAN
ALLIANCE (SEAGLA), JUNEAU, testified against HB 226. She
pointed out that the legislation was initiated on the
premise of "financial burden" as initially stated by
Representative Kelly in the House HESS Committee. She
reminded Committee members of evidence that the financial
cost would be less than .5%. Ms. Hargis added that it is
important that more children be covered and have access to
health care.
7
In response to Representative Kelly's comment, Ms. Hargis
agreed that fraud does exist within any system, although,
stated that all employees deserve the same rights. Ms.
Hargis urged Committee members to either "kill" the bill or
pass the version adopted by the House HESS Committee.
Representative Therriault warned that the end result of this
argument could be that only employees are covered by the
insurance benefits. Ms. Hargis agreed that this could
happen.
Representative Kelly noted that the issue is not how many
same sex people versus how many opposite sex people sign up.
To date 45 people have signed up. Aetna Insurance Company
has stated the cost. Representative Kelly noted that cost
would be equivalent to the cost of a university professor
for a one year salary. Aetna does assume a percentage
increase each year. Representative Kelly emphasized that
these costs will grow, and that they are a moving target.
Ms. Hargis replied that Aetna has also clarified that the
amount does increase, although, the increase for any
organization participating has not exceeded the 3% cap in
the past several years.
(Tape Change, HFC 96-22, Side 1).
Ms. Hargis concluded that the State would be better served
by providing more people access to health care.
MARSHA BUCK, PARENTS, FAMILIES AND FRIENDS OF LESBIANS AND
GAYS (PFLAG), JUNEAU, provided Committee members with a copy
of a letter from Dixie Hood, Co-Chair, PFLAG, indicating the
position of that group. [Copy on file]. The letter
requested that the bill die in Committee, suggesting that
the matter be addressed by the employer and the employee.
Ms. Buck noted that she agreed with the testimony of Ms.
Hood and encouraged the bill to die in Committee. She
stated that as a parent of a daughter in a domestic
relationship, the bill as written was divisive and deals
with matters of personal freedom. Representative Therriault
commented that the people of Alaska are the employers of the
University of Alaska employees, of which he represents a
specific group of those shareholders, who think differently
than Ms. Buck.
SARA BOESSER, BOARD MEMBER, STATEWIDE ORGANIZATION, THE
COMMITTEE FOR EQUALITY, JUNEAU, spoke in opposition to HB
226. She advised that the Committee for Equality does
support the HESS version of the legislation and that version
matches the court action. [Copy of testimony on file].
8
Ms. Boesser recommended the House Finance Committee send the
bill to a subcommittee to research the legal and financial
implications of any changes that would cross the court
proceedings now in progress. She continued, in the extent
that Representative Kelly opposes equal benefits for
domestic partnerships on religious beliefs he may hold, the
Committee should remember that while the U.S. Constitution
does protect people from discrimination on the basis of
religion, that protection also includes freedom from
religion.
In conclusion, Ms. Boesser, summarized that CS 226 (JUD) as
passed was a good bill, but unnecessary, due to the pending
court action at this time.
Representative Kelly addressed the legislative ethics
concern, pointing out that the bill does not ban domestic
partnerships. The proposed legislation only states that if
you choose as an employer or employee not to recognize
domestic partnerships to give benefits, you can choose to do
so. He added that these concerns are defined in the Alaska
Statutes and are determined on that level; not the Supreme
Court. Ms. Boesser disagreed, stating that the bill was
specifically written in order to discriminate against people
in domestic relationships.
PAM LABOLLE, PRESIDENT, ALASKA STATE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,
JUNEAU, advised that the Alaska State Chamber of Commerce
represents nearly 700 employers statewide which employees
7,000 employees. The Alaska State Chamber of Commerce has
no position on the traditional or non-traditional aspect of
the legislation. She advised that the Chamber's concern is
that without the proposed legislation, there would be an
expansion of the benefit pool which would increase State
spending. Ms. LaBolle commented that the number one
priority of the State Chamber was a reduction of State
spending.
Ms. LaBolle continued, private employers are in competition
with the State. The State pays a much better benefit
package than a private employer can afford and thus, private
industry loses good employees to the State work force. She
suggested that to level the playing field would give
coverage for the actual employee and the additional coverage
would be paid for individually for each dependent.
Representative Navarre argued that the benefits which
already exist cause the competition with private employers,
not those being discussed for the non-traditional
households. He stated that the competition would be
minimally impacted by the application of the bill. Ms.
9
LaBolle emphasized that all the facts are not currently
available. She thought anything that was done to enhance
the State's benefits would place the State in greater
competition with the private sector. Representative Navarre
responded that the intent was to extend benefits to people
already employed and would not be used as a recruitment tool
by the State.
Representative Mulder MOVED that CS HB 226 (FIN) be the
version before the Committee. Representative Brown
OBJECTED.
Representative Navarre asked for further clarification of
"domestic partnership". Co-Chair Hanley noted that CS HB
226 (FIN) would return the law to the place it was before
Judge Greens decision. Statutorily, the decision would
close the questions which Judge Green had, clarifying that
discrimination is allowed in that particular instance. He
added that the strict definition of marriage would be the
dividing line.
Representative Navarre speculated that there would be a
fiscal impact to the Department of Law. He thought that the
legislation would be challenged on a constitutional basis.
Representative Grussendorf summarized that the two previous
Committees agreed to the same changes, whereas, the House
Finance Committee is proposing to adopt the original bill,
at the same time in which it will be before the Supreme
Court.
Representative Brown reiterated her original objection,
noting that the Committee should be considering the
standard, including the constitutional obligations. The
Constitution clearly states that all people are equal and
have equal rights. The Legislation specifies groups of
persons equally qualified, who are being discriminated
against. She continued, CS HB 226 (FIN) would mandate
legislative discrimination which she strongly opposes.
Representative Kohring voiced his support of the committee
substitute. He spoke to the philosophical differences
between Committee members and addressed the economical cost
to the State.
Representative Brown asked what the term "legal dependent"
meant. Representative Kelly spoke to Amendment #1 which
would change that language to "children".
A roll call was taken on the MOTION to adopt CS HB 226 (FIN)
as the version before the Committee.
IN FAVOR: Martin, Mulder, Therriault, Kelly,
10
Kohring, Hanley, Foster.
OPPOSED: Navarre, Brown, Grussendorf.
Representative Parnell was not present for the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (7-3).
Representative Kelly MOVED Amendment #1. [Attachment #3].
Representative Brown asked if a couple in a domestic
partnership were non-marital status and one of the partners
had children, would those children be covered.
Representative Therriault replied that the children of the
employed partner would be covered.
Representative Brown asked who would be excluded by the
amendment. Representative Kelly noted that no one would be
excluded. He stated that the term "legal dependents" was
too broad. There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment #1 was
adopted.
Representative Mulder MOVED to report CS HB 226 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal note. Representative Brown OBJECTED.
A roll call was taken on the MOTION to move the bill from
Committee.
IN FAVOR: Mulder, Therriault, Kelly, Kohring,
Martin, Foster, Hanley.
OPPOSED: Navarre, Brown, Grussendorf.
Representative Parnell was not present for the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (7-3).
CS HB 226 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass' recommendation and with a fiscal note by the
Department of Administration.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 12:50 P.M.
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
JANUARY 30, 1996
10:40 A.M.
TAPE HFC 96 - 21, Side 1, #000 - end.
TAPE HFC 96 - 21, Side 2, #000 - end.
TAPE HFC 96 - 22, Side 1, #000 - end.
11
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Mark Hanley called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 10:40 A.M.
PRESENT
Co-Chair Hanley Representative Martin
Co-Chair Foster Representative Mulder
Representative Brown Representative Navarre
Representative Grussendorf Representative Kohring
Representative Kelly Representative Therriault
Representative Parnell was not present for the meeting.
ALSO PRESENT
Mark Tumeo, (Testified via teleconference), Antarctica; Kate
Wattum, (Testified via teleconference), Fairbanks; Daniel
Collison, Board Member, Southeast Alaska Gay and Lesbian
Alliance, Juneau; Stephen Jacquier, (Testified via
teleconference), Self, Anchorage; Lynn Stimler, (Testified
via teleconference), Executive Director,American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU), Anchorage; Tom Owens, (Testified via
teleconference), Attorney, Representing University of
Alaska, Anchorage; Mildred Boesser, Juneau City and Borough
Human Rights Commission, Juneau; Susan Hargis, Chair,
Southeast Alaska Gay and Lesbian Alliance (SEAGLA), Juneau;
Marsha Buck, Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and
Gays (PFLAG), Juneau; Sara Boesser, Board Member, the
Committee for Equality, Juneau; Pam LaBolle, President,
Alaska State Chamber of Commerce -Juneau.
SUMMARY
HB 226 An Act permitting the provision of different
retirement and health benefits to employees based
on marital status.
CS HB 226 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with a fiscal note
by the Department of Administration.
HOUSE BILL 226
"An Act permitting the provision of different
retirement and health benefits to employees based on
marital status."
MARK TUMEO, ANTARCTICA, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE),
testified on HB 226 and the proposed amendment by
Representative Kelly. He stated that providing health
12
benefits to the domestic partner of an employee would not
represent a threat to the State's economy, the social
fabric, marriage or society. He noted that the University
of Alaska has already instituted domestic partner benefits
without major administrative or economic impact. There has
been less that a .5% increase to benefit costs.
Mr. Tumeo agreed that the bill was "highly" controversial.
It is a bill that deals with the definition of relationship;
a bill which touches the core of every Alaskan's concept of
fair play and morality. He added, the arguments presented
to support the bill were emotional and that those persons
opposing the bill are at a distinct disadvantage. Mr. Tumeo
questioned if "emotional moralism" was a politically
successful basis for legislation. He felt that the proposed
legislation would attempt to legislate in favor of one group
of people--married people--over another group--non-married
people.
Mr. Tumeo thought that passage of the legislation would be
another example of the government intruding in personal
affairs. He urged Committee members to "kill" the bill as
he felt that it would gut the Human Rights Act in an attempt
to enforce one type of family structure over another. [Copy
of testimony on file].
Representative Brown asked the current status of the court
suit. Mr. Tumeo explained that it was pending before the
Supreme Court and that a decision would be issued in Spring,
1996.
Representative Martin voiced strong support of the
traditional family rights, stating that the core issue was
being degraded. Mr. Tumeo explained that information
resulting from the 1990 census indicates that less than 40%
of the children in our country are raised in a two parent
home where one parent stays home. He emphasized the fact
that there are many different family structures.
Mr. Tumeo responded to a question regarding the court brief.
He stated it was not the legal argument which was supported
or presented by the Supreme Court. He acknowledged that
there should be a "tight" fence around who could qualify for
the benefits. Representative Therriault stated that
information needed clarification by the Human Rights Act.
Mr. Tumeo added, following the Court's decision, the law
will be eliminated or expanded reflecting the interpretation
of that decision. He added, it would be premature to act
before the Supreme Court decision, entering into a
possibility of amending a critical law.
13
Representative Therriault voiced his concern that no limit
existed, pointing out when the Human Rights Act was enacted,
it was not anticipated the need that this circumstance would
exist.
Representative Kelly spoke to the amendment adopted by the
House HESS Committee as proposed by Mr. Tumeo. He
questioned isolating the concept of "domestic partnerships",
suggesting that the criteria proposed would allow anyone to
buy into or out of the program. Mr. Tumeo explained various
approaches to domestic partnerships which can be legally
binding. He added, as with any benefit or condition upon
which a benefit is given, the conditions can change. Once
the status changes, the individual would be responsible to
report that. He continued, there are plenty of stipulations
to address the fraud concerns, and that the University does
have a qualification waiting period. Mr. Tumeo acknowledged
Representative Kelly's concern agreeing that some
relationships are not long lasting and pointing out that was
true of marriage's also.
Representative Kelly disagreed. He stated that a person
could get into and out of domestic partnerships more
quickly; a domestic partnership ends when the partners stop
living together. Representative Kelly added that the non-
traditional relationship will leave behind broken marriages,
broken neighborhoods and broken families. Mr. Tumeo
countered that a domestic partnership does not threaten a
marriage. Non-traditional relationships can be entered into
and exited just as a marriage can. Mr. Tumeo concluded that
relationships of either type should not be of legislative
interest.
Representative Kelly elaborated that the changes made to the
legislation in the two previous committee's could threaten
partners within a domestic partnership. Representative
Kelly explained the origin of the legislation, noting that a
recent court decision ordered the University of Alaska to
extend health insurance coverage and benefits to domestic
partners. HB 226 would address the decision by reasserting
the rights of employers, including the State, to exclude
domestic partners from health insurance benefits, unless
they choose otherwise. He added, it was his intent that HB
226 reduce the uncertainty employers now face in planning
group insurance programs.
Representative Kelly added, the court decision leaves
unclear who is, and who is not, entitled to family benefits.
HB 226 would seek to close the door on a possible onslaught
of domestic partnerships created just to gain benefits.
Representative Kelly urged the Committee's support of the
original legislation or the House Finance Committee version.
14
KATE WATTUM, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), FAIRBANKS,
spoke against HB 226 which she felt would specifically write
"discrimination" into law. She emphasized that the proposed
legislation is about "emotion" and "people", and that people
will be hurt with its passage. She thought that the
extended benefits program should be issued to all family
members who qualify.
Representative Martin asked if Ms. Wattum's partner
currently had a health package. Ms. Wattum explained that
her partner does currently have coverage and that it is
supplemented with her own policy through the University.
Representative Martin expounded his theories on the legality
of marriage and the rights which come with that choice.
Representative Martin added that the State should not be
required to pay for equal rights in domestic partnerships.
Ms. Wattum remarked that all she was requesting was equal
access to a benefit which every other married employee of
the University has access to for their spouses and children.
Representative Kelly pointed out that if the court decision
was held and that domestic partnerships were created, Ms.
Wattum would be paid more than the single person who is
employed at the same work place. He emphasized that the act
would create a new class of people. Discussion followed
between Ms. Wattum and Representative Kelly regarding this
"new" class of people.
DANIEL COLLISON, BOARD MEMBERS, SOUTHEAST ALASKA GAY AND
LESBIAN ALLIANCE (SEAGLA), JUNEAU, distributed a letter to
Committee members from Bob Miller, Director, Office of
Public Affairs, University of Alaska. [Attachment #1]. Mr.
Collison spoke against HB 226 and/or in support of the HESS
version of the legislation.
He pointed out that the University has received less than 1%
increase in plan enrollments. Mr. Collison referenced the
letter [Attachment #1], clarifying that to date only 44
employees have registered their partners in the domestic
health plan. One third of these individuals are in same sex
relationships; additionally, nine children were registered.
He observed that the recognition of domestic partnerships
would not place an undue burden on the State. Mr. Collison
urged the passage of HB 226 with the HESS amendment.
Representative Martin reiterated his concerns recognizing
non-traditional families and relationships. Mr. Collison
reminded Representative Martin that the question before the
Committee was access to the benefits on economic grounds.
15
He stressed the issue is the court has indicated that it is
wrong to discriminate against domestic partnerships.
(Tape Change, HFC 96-21, Side 2).
Mr. Collison reiterated that the Supreme Court is due to
rule on that issue this spring.
Representative Therriault felt that the court decision does
not address the main concern of discrimination. Mr.
Collison interjected that the court decision was being
decided on access to benefits. A marriage relationship
carries with it inter-financial legal obligations. He
pointed out that he could have a relationship with a man and
have those same responsibilities. The court is trying to
clarify that there can exist two different types of
contractual relationships; one entered into by marriage and
another one entered into privately by two individuals,
recognized as a domestic partner relationship. The court is
not creating different classes of people, but instead
interpreting why certain people are being denied benefits.
STEPHEN JACQUIER, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE),
REPRESENTING SELF, ANCHORAGE, spoke strongly against passage
of the proposed legislation.
Representative Grussendorf advised that the law in Alaska
currently is based on the decision of Judge Green, who
indicated the action attempted by the University of Alaska
was discriminatory in nature. He reminded Committee members
that the case was currently before the Supreme Court on
appeal with a decision soon to be made. Representative
Grussendorf summarized that the HESS version of the
legislation does support the opinion of Judge Green.
LYNN STIMLER, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION (ACLU), ANCHORAGE,
explained that the issue of HB 226 should not exist while it
is pending before the Supreme Court. She pointed out that
the ACLU is opposed to the original HB 226. She noted that
it is outside the spirit and plain language of the Alaska
Constitution and the Alaska Human Rights Act.
Ms. Stimler addressed the economics, noting that private
employers extend these type of benefits because it is good
business practice. Employers know and understand that
today's work force is comprised of many people living in
many different types of situations. The Alaska Constitution
is more broadly protective of the individuals civil rights
and liberties than the U.S. Constitution is.
Ms. Stimler reiterated that the ACLU believes the State is
16
"out of place" debating these concerns while the issue is
before the Supreme Court. To adopt language amending law to
specifically allow discrimination because of marital status
is against the spirit and plain language of the Alaska Human
Rights Act. She urged the Legislature not to be involved in
such a discriminating policy.
TOM OWENS, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ATTORNEY,
REPRESENTING THE UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA - ANCHORAGE, commented
that the provisions of A.S. 18:80 only applies to public
employers. The State anti- discrimination laws have been
made inapplicable to qualify for benefits or plans in the
private sector. He added, it is important to note that
Judge Green's decision was not based on any constitutional
analysis.
Mr. Owens added, the purpose of the proposed amendment, A.S.
18:80, was to confirm the statutory scheme which has existed
in the State of Alaska for many years. This scheme allows
public employers to discriminate in the provision of
benefits on the basis of marital status or parental status.
He continued, the purpose of the proposed legislation would
confirm that the Legislature never intended to have the
provisions of A.S. 18:80 prohibit the provision of health
care benefits on the bases of marital or parental status.
Representative Grussendorf asked if the bill would affect
the private sector. Mr. Owens replied that Judge Green did
not get to the constitutional issues because she didn't need
to. She based her decision upon reading the language of
A.S. 18:80, adding that the courts make their decision on
the lowest level of consideration. The applicability of
A.S. 18:80 to the private sector would be based on the
federal court ruling in 1974. The State antidiscrimination
laws do not apply to the provisions of benefits under a
qualified plan in the private sector.
Representative Martin pointed out the amenities available to
University teachers, health care, tuition and benefit
waivers. He reminded Committee members that the Legislature
continues to be responsible for the University budget.
Representative Therriault questioned how Judge Green got
beyond statute areas which mandate the differentiation. Mr.
Owens responded that Judge Green made her decision through a
written opinion. His comments on her decision are based
upon a reading of that decision. Judge Green did not make
any comments regarding the other statutory provisions that
either mandate or permit discrimination based on marital
status. After Judge Green made her decision, the University
made a motion to reconsider, pointing out to Judge Green the
existence of the other statutes which level the Legislative
17
intent to file or require discrimination provision of
benefits based on marital status. Judge Green refused to
consider those arguments and thus continued with her
original decision.
MILDRED BOESSER, JUNEAU CITY & BOROUGH HUMAN RIGHTS
COMMISSION, JUNEAU, provided Committee members with a Human
Rights Commission, City and Borough of Juneau (CBJ) Position
Paper on HB 226. [Attachment #2]. She noted that the CBJ
Committee opposes HB 226 because it discriminates against
committed partners to the detriment of Alaska and in
violation of the Constitution.
Mrs. Boesser understood that the legislation resulted from a
fear to undermine the traditional family unit, whereas in
reality, the concept of "domestic partners" is an attempt to
enlarge the concept of family to include non-traditional
groupings which exist everywhere already. She recommended
that this group is in need of the family support and the
benefits that traditional families enjoy.
Mrs. Boesser acknowledged that we all live in a changing
society and that many different types of families have
emerged. She encouraged supporting people that are in
loving, stable relationships, even when that picture does
not include our own view of family.
Co-Chair Hanley asked if CBJ allows domestic partners to
share in benefits. Mrs. Boesser replied they do not at this
time.
Representative Kelly pointed out that the Alaska Human
Rights Commission did not support Judge Greens decision.
SUSAN HARGIS, CHAIR, SOUTHEAST ALASKA GAY AND LESBIAN
ALLIANCE (SEAGLA), JUNEAU, testified against HB 226. She
pointed out that the legislation was initiated on the
premise of "financial burden" as initially stated by
Representative Kelly in the House HESS Committee. She
reminded Committee members of evidence that the financial
cost would be less than .5%. Ms. Hargis added that it is
important that more children be covered and have access to
health care.
In response to Representative Kelly's comment, Ms. Hargis
agreed that fraud does exist within any system, although,
stated that all employees deserve the same rights. Ms.
Hargis urged Committee members to either "kill" the bill or
pass the version adopted by the House HESS Committee.
Representative Therriault warned that the end result of this
argument could be that only employees are covered by the
18
insurance benefits. Ms. Hargis agreed that this could
happen.
Representative Kelly noted that the issue is not how many
same sex people versus how many opposite sex people sign up.
To date 45 people have signed up. Aetna Insurance Company
has stated the cost. Representative Kelly noted that cost
would be equivalent to the cost of a university professor
for a one year salary. Aetna does assume a percentage
increase each year. Representative Kelly emphasized that
these costs will grow, and that they are a moving target.
Ms. Hargis replied that Aetna has also clarified that the
amount does increase, although, the increase for any
organization participating has not exceeded the 3% cap in
the past several years.
(Tape Change, HFC 96-22, Side 1).
Ms. Hargis concluded that the State would be better served
by providing more people access to health care.
MARSHA BUCK, PARENTS, FAMILIES AND FRIENDS OF LESBIANS AND
GAYS (PFLAG), JUNEAU, provided Committee members with a copy
of a letter from Dixie Hood, Co-Chair, PFLAG, indicating the
position of that group. [Copy on file]. The letter
requested that the bill die in Committee, suggesting that
the matter be addressed by the employer and the employee.
Ms. Buck noted that she agreed with the testimony of Ms.
Hood and encouraged the bill to die in Committee. She
stated that as a parent of a daughter in a domestic
relationship, the bill as written was divisive and deals
with matters of personal freedom. Representative Therriault
commented that the people of Alaska are the employers of the
University of Alaska employees, of which he represents a
specific group of those shareholders, who think differently
than Ms. Buck.
SARA BOESSER, BOARD MEMBER, STATEWIDE ORGANIZATION, THE
COMMITTEE FOR EQUALITY, JUNEAU, spoke in opposition to HB
226. She advised that the Committee for Equality does
support the HESS version of the legislation and that version
matches the court action. [Copy of testimony on file].
Ms. Boesser recommended the House Finance Committee send the
bill to a subcommittee to research the legal and financial
implications of any changes that would cross the court
proceedings now in progress. She continued, in the extent
that Representative Kelly opposes equal benefits for
domestic partnerships on religious beliefs he may hold, the
Committee should remember that while the U.S. Constitution
does protect people from discrimination on the basis of
19
religion, that protection also includes freedom from
religion.
In conclusion, Ms. Boesser, summarized that CS 226 (JUD) as
passed was a good bill, but unnecessary, due to the pending
court action at this time.
Representative Kelly addressed the legislative ethics
concern, pointing out that the bill does not ban domestic
partnerships. The proposed legislation only states that if
you choose as an employer or employee not to recognize
domestic partnerships to give benefits, you can choose to do
so. He added that these concerns are defined in the Alaska
Statutes and are determined on that level; not the Supreme
Court. Ms. Boesser disagreed, stating that the bill was
specifically written in order to discriminate against people
in domestic relationships.
PAM LABOLLE, PRESIDENT, ALASKA STATE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,
JUNEAU, advised that the Alaska State Chamber of Commerce
represents nearly 700 employers statewide which employees
7,000 employees. The Alaska State Chamber of Commerce has
no position on the traditional or non-traditional aspect of
the legislation. She advised that the Chamber's concern is
that without the proposed legislation, there would be an
expansion of the benefit pool which would increase State
spending. Ms. LaBolle commented that the number one
priority of the State Chamber was a reduction of State
spending.
Ms. LaBolle continued, private employers are in competition
with the State. The State pays a much better benefit
package than a private employer can afford and thus, private
industry loses good employees to the State work force. She
suggested that to level the playing field would give
coverage for the actual employee and the additional coverage
would be paid for individually for each dependent.
Representative Navarre argued that the benefits which
already exist cause the competition with private employers,
not those being discussed for the non-traditional
households. He stated that the competition would be
minimally impacted by the application of the bill. Ms.
LaBolle emphasized that all the facts are not currently
available. She thought anything that was done to enhance
the State's benefits would place the State in greater
competition with the private sector. Representative Navarre
responded that the intent was to extend benefits to people
already employed and would not be used as a recruitment tool
by the State.
Representative Mulder MOVED that CS HB 226 (FIN) be the
20
version before the Committee. Representative Brown
OBJECTED.
Representative Navarre asked for further clarification of
"domestic partnership". Co-Chair Hanley noted that CS HB
226 (FIN) would return the law to the place it was before
Judge Greens decision. Statutorily, the decision would
close the questions which Judge Green had, clarifying that
discrimination is allowed in that particular instance. He
added that the strict definition of marriage would be the
dividing line.
Representative Navarre speculated that there would be a
fiscal impact to the Department of Law. He thought that the
legislation would be challenged on a constitutional basis.
Representative Grussendorf summarized that the two previous
Committees agreed to the same changes, whereas, the House
Finance Committee is proposing to adopt the original bill,
at the same time in which it will be before the Supreme
Court.
Representative Brown reiterated her original objection,
noting that the Committee should be considering the
standard, including the constitutional obligations. The
Constitution clearly states that all people are equal and
have equal rights. The Legislation specifies groups of
persons equally qualified, who are being discriminated
against. She continued, CS HB 226 (FIN) would mandate
legislative discrimination which she strongly opposes.
Representative Kohring voiced his support of the committee
substitute. He spoke to the philosophical differences
between Committee members and addressed the economical cost
to the State.
Representative Brown asked what the term "legal dependent"
meant. Representative Kelly spoke to Amendment #1 which
would change that language to "children".
A roll call was taken on the MOTION to adopt CS HB 226 (FIN)
as the version before the Committee.
IN FAVOR: Martin, Mulder, Therriault, Kelly,
Kohring, Hanley, Foster.
OPPOSED: Navarre, Brown, Grussendorf.
Representative Parnell was not present for the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (7-3).
Representative Kelly MOVED Amendment #1. [Attachment #3].
Representative Brown asked if a couple in a domestic
21
partnership were non-marital status and one of the partners
had children, would those children be covered.
Representative Therriault replied that the children of the
employed partner would be covered.
Representative Brown asked who would be excluded by the
amendment. Representative Kelly noted that no one would be
excluded. He stated that the term "legal dependents" was
too broad. There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment #1 was
adopted.
Representative Mulder MOVED to report CS HB 226 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal note. Representative Brown OBJECTED.
A roll call was taken on the MOTION to move the bill from
Committee.
IN FAVOR: Mulder, Therriault, Kelly, Kohring,
Martin, Foster, Hanley.
OPPOSED: Navarre, Brown, Grussendorf.
Representative Parnell was not present for the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (7-3).
CS HB 226 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass' recommendation and with a fiscal note by the
Department of Administration.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 12:50 P.M.
22
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|