Legislature(2003 - 2004)
05/05/2004 04:20 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
May 5, 2004
4:20 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Lesil McGuire, Chair
Representative Tom Anderson, Vice Chair
Representative Jim Holm
Representative Dan Ogg
Representative Ralph Samuels
Representative Les Gara
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARING
Commission on Judicial Conduct
Thomas G. Nave, Esq. - Juneau
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 288(JUD)
"An Act relating to temporary custody hearings, and to certain
determinations concerning placement of a child in child-in-need-
of-aid proceedings; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSSB 288(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 316
"An Act relating to motor vehicle safety belt violations."
- MOVED HCS SB 316(TRA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 563
"An Act relating to open meetings guidelines applicable to
legislators, to the confidentiality of complaints and
proceedings involving alleging violations of AS 24.60, and to
hearings on formal charges by the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics or its subcommittees."
- MOVED CSHB 563(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 179(FIN)
"An Act relating to criminal history records and background
checks; allowing persons to teach in the public schools for up
to five months without a teaching certificate if the person has
applied for a certificate and the application has not been acted
upon by the Department of Education and Early Development due to
a delay in receiving criminal history records; allowing teacher
certification for certain persons based on a criminal history
background check without fingerprints; and providing for an
effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 535
"An Act relating to liability for expenses of placement in
certain mental health facilities; relating to the mental health
treatment assistance program; and providing for an effective
date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 54
"An Act relating to the crime of assault."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 338(STA)
"An Act relating to actionable claims against state employees;
and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 219(JUD) am
"An Act relating to offenses against unborn children."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 354(STA) am(efd fld)
"An Act relating to complaints filed with, and investigations,
hearings, and orders of, the State Commission for Human Rights;
and making conforming amendments."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 269(CRA)
"An Act relating to access to library records, including access
to the library records of a child by a parent or guardian."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
CS FOR SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 33(STA)
Urging our United States Senators to work to allow a timely vote
on the floor on all judicial nominations.
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 217(JUD)
"An Act relating to genetic privacy."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 284(FIN) am
"An Act making information on a permanent fund dividend
application, other than the applicant's name, confidential, and
relating to disclosure of that confidential information; and
relating to confidential information in voter registration
records."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 288
SHORT TITLE: TEMPORARY CHILD CUSTODY HRNGS/PLACEMENT
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) GREEN
02/02/04 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/02/04 (S) HES, JUD
02/09/04 (S) HES AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/09/04 (S) Moved CSSB 288(HES) Out of Committee
02/09/04 (S) MINUTE(HES)
02/11/04 (S) HES RPT CS 3DP SAME TITLE
02/11/04 (S) DP: DYSON, GREEN, WILKEN
02/11/04 (S) FIN REFERRAL ADDED AFTER JUD
02/18/04 (S) JUD AT 8:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
02/18/04 (S) Heard & Held
02/18/04 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
02/23/04 (S) JUD AT 8:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
02/23/04 (S) -- Meeting Canceled --
03/01/04 (S) JUD AT 8:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
03/01/04 (S) Moved CSSB 288(JUD) Out of Committee
03/01/04 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/01/04 (S) JUD RPT CS 2DP 2NR NEW TITLE
03/01/04 (S) DP: SEEKINS, OGAN; NR: THERRIAULT,
03/01/04 (S) ELLIS
03/09/04 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/09/04 (S) Moved CSSB 288(JUD) Out of Committee
03/09/04 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/10/04 (S) FIN RPT CS(JUD) 5DP 2NR
03/10/04 (S) DP: GREEN, WILKEN, DYSON, BUNDE,
03/10/04 (S) STEVENS B; NR: HOFFMAN, OLSON
03/15/04 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/15/04 (S) VERSION: CSSB 288(JUD)
03/16/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/16/04 (H) HES, JUD, FIN
03/30/04 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/30/04 (H) Moved Out of Committee
03/30/04 (H) MINUTE(HES)
03/31/04 (H) HES RPT 5DP 1DNP
03/31/04 (H) DP: SEATON, COGHILL, WOLF, GATTO,
03/31/04 (H) WILSON; DNP: CISSNA
04/16/04 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/16/04 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed 04/19/04>
04/19/04 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/19/04 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
04/28/04 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/28/04 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
05/05/04 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: SB 316
SHORT TITLE: SEAT BELT VIOLATION AS PRIMARY OFFENSE
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) BUNDE
02/11/04 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/11/04 (S) STA, JUD
02/26/04 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
02/26/04 (S) Moved SB 316 Out of Committee
02/26/04 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/27/04 (S) STA RPT 2DP 1NR
02/27/04 (S) DP: STEVENS G, COWDERY; NR: STEDMAN
03/12/04 (S) JUD AT 8:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
03/12/04 (S) Moved SB 316 Out of Committee
03/12/04 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/12/04 (S) JUD RPT 1DP 2NR
03/12/04 (S) DP: SEEKINS; NR: FRENCH, THERRIAULT
03/19/04 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/19/04 (S) VERSION: SB 316
03/22/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/22/04 (H) TRA, JUD
04/23/04 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/23/04 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed>
04/27/04 (H) TRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 17
04/27/04 (H) Heard & Held
04/27/04 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
04/28/04 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/28/04 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/28/04 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
05/03/04 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
05/03/04 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
05/04/04 (H) TRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 17
05/04/04 (H) Moved HCS SB 316(TRA) Out of Committee
05/04/04 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
05/05/04 (H) TRA RPT HCS(TRA) 2DP 4DNP 1NR
05/05/04 (H) DP: KAPSNER, KOOKESH; DNP: MASEK,
05/05/04 (H) KOHRING, STEPOVICH, HOLM; NR: OGG
05/05/04 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 563
SHORT TITLE: LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURE & ETHICS GUIDELINES
SPONSOR(S): RULES
05/04/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/04/04 (H) JUD
05/05/04 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
THOMAS G. NAVE, Esq., Appointee
Commission on Judicial Conduct (CJC)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as appointee to the Commission on
Judicial Conduct (CJC).
JACQUELINE TUPOU, Staff
to Senator Lyda Green
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 288 on behalf of the sponsor,
Senator Green.
JOANNE GIBBENS, Program Administrator
Office of Children's Services (OCS)
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of SB 288, responded to a
question.
VENNIE NEMECEK, Assistant Attorney General
Human Services Section
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law (DOL)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of SB 288, responded to a
question.
LAUREN WICKERSHAM, Staff
to Senator Con Bunde
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 316 on behalf of the sponsor,
Senator Bunde.
DON SMITH, Administrator
Highway Safety Office
Division of Program Development
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 316 and
responded to questions.
KEVIN E. QUINLAN, Chief
Safety Advocacy
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
Washington, D.C.
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of SB
316.
RONNI SULLIVAN, Executive Director
Southern Region Emergency Medical Services Council, Inc.
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 316.
ALLEN STOREY, Lieutenant
Central Office
Division of Alaska State Troopers
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 316.
MARTHA MOORE, Trauma Registry Coordinator
Community Health & Emergency Medical Services
Division of Public Health
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 316.
CINDY CASHEN, Executive Director
Juneau Chapter
Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 316.
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As chair of the House Rules Standing
Committee, sponsor of HB 563, explained the bill and responded
to questions.
DENNIS "SKIP" COOK, Vice Chair
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments and responded to
questions during discussion of HB 563.
JUSTIN ROBERTS
Alaska Common Cause
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments and responded to
questions during discussion of HB 563 and proposed amendments.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 04-75, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR LESIL McGUIRE called the House Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 4:20 p.m. Representatives
McGuire, Holm, Ogg, Samuels, and Gara were present at the call
to order. Representatives Anderson and Gruenberg arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
^CONFIRMATION HEARINGS
^Commission on Judicial Conduct
[Not on tape, but reconstructed from the committee secretary's
log notes, was:
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the committee would first consider
the appointment of Thomas G. Nave, Esq., to the Commission on
Judicial Conduct.]
Number 0016
THOMAS G. NAVE, Esq., Appointee, Commission on Judicial Conduct
(CJC), in response to the question of why he wishes to serve on
the CJC, said:
Attorneys have an ethical obligation to help maintain
an approved justice system. And as [of] about six
years ago, I completed a six-year term on the Alaska
Judicial Council, and six years have gone by and I've
been relatively inactive, and I just thought it was
time to do something else. So ... [serving on the
CJC] was suggested to me and it sounded like a
wonderful idea, so I immediately said yes.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG declared a conflict in that Mr. Nave is
his family's attorney. He characterized Mr. Nave as an
excellent lawyer, and said he recommends Mr. Nave for the CJC.
Number 0108
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS made a motion to advance from committee
the nomination of Thomas G. Nave, Esq., as appointee to the
Commission on Judicial Conduct. There being no objection, the
confirmation was advanced from the House Judiciary Standing
Committee.
SB 288 - TEMPORARY CHILD CUSTODY HRNGS/PLACEMENT
Number 0130
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the next order of business would be
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 288(JUD), "An Act relating to temporary
custody hearings, and to certain determinations concerning
placement of a child in child-in-need-of-aid proceedings; and
providing for an effective date."
Number 0170
JACQUELINE TUPOU, Staff to Senator Lyda Green, Alaska State
Legislature, sponsor, on behalf of Senator Green, relayed that
current law provides that the courts have to determine, within
48 hours of removing a child from the home, that there was
probable cause for the child to be removed. However, when
making this determination, the courts currently use various
language that is often not in compliance with federal
requirements for purposes of receiving federal reimbursement.
Federal requirements stipulate that when making the
determination about continued placement in the home, the
language used must contain the phrase, "contrary to the welfare
of the child". Senate Bill 288 mandates the use of that phrase
by the courts, and it is estimated that passage of the bill will
bring in about $500,000 in "Title IV-E" funding. She noted that
this increase in funding is included in the governor's budget
for fiscal year (FY) 2005.
MS. TUPOU, in response to a question, said that the legal
standard will not change with passage of SB 288; the courts will
merely have to conform the language that is used in the
aforementioned determinations to federal standards.
Number 0304
JOANNE GIBBENS, Program Administrator, Office of Children's
Services (OCS), Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS),
in response to a question, offered that a portion of the
proposed new language reads:
If a court determines that continued placement in the
home of the child's parent or guardian would not be
contrary to the welfare of the child, the court shall
return the authority to place the child to the child's
parent or guardian pending a temporary custody hearing
under (e) of this section
Number 0446
VENNIE NEMECEK, Assistant Attorney General, Human Services
Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law (DOL),
added that the main goal of this language is to be consistent in
using the phrase, "contrary to the welfare of the child". The
DOL does not want to change that phrase at all because that is
the phrase that is used in the federal law. Thus, if the court
declines to make that finding - that continued placement in the
home is contrary to the welfare of the child - then the court
returns the authority to place the child to the parent. He
opined that the proposed language is the cleanest way to say
what is meant.
Number 0518
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to report CSSB 288(JUD) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal note. There being no objection, CSSB 288(JUD) was
reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
SB 316 - SEAT BELT VIOLATION AS PRIMARY OFFENSE
Number 0540
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the next order of business would be
SENATE BILL NO. 316, "An Act relating to motor vehicle safety
belt violations." [The committee had before it both SB 316 and
HCS SB 316(TRA).]
Number 0549
LAUREN WICKERSHAM, Staff to Senator Con Bunde, Alaska State
Legislature, sponsor, on behalf of Senator Bunde, relayed that
the bill changes current seatbelt law such that a violation will
become a primary offense. Although current law requires all
individuals riding in a car to wear a seatbelt, law enforcement
may only cite an individual for failure to wear a seatbelt if
that individual is being pulled over for another reason. This
will change with adoption of the bill in that it will allow law
enforcement to pull an individual over for failure to wear a
seatbelt.
MS. WICKERSHAM predicted that passage of the bill will increase
seatbelt use by up to 15 percent in the first year, and that
this will translate into saving 10-12 Alaskan lives.
Additionally, Alaska will gain federal funds for highway repairs
and education campaigns, as well as other [federal] monies that
are currently withheld due to noncompliance with safety
requirements. She estimated that Alaska will receive close to
$4 million in the first year. Alaskan residents spend millions
of dollars annually on motor vehicle crashes, and the bill will
save Alaskans thousands of dollars in the first year alone, she
relayed, adding that 85 percent of all costs involved in crashes
are borne by citizens who had nothing to do with those crashes;
those costs include emergency services, medical and
rehabilitative treatments, health and auto insurance premiums,
and other related costs.
MS. WICKERSHAM said that regardless of whether those costs are
covered by private services, members of society pay for the
accidents that they are not directly involved in; for example,
the average cost for Alaskans last year was $820 per person.
Employers pay even more for motor vehicle crashes in that they
pay increased taxes, health insurance costs, and workers'
compensation costs. Surveys - both national and Alaskan -
indicate that individuals support a primary seatbelt law; for
example, according to a telephone survey conducted by the Alaska
Injury Prevention Center, 67 percent of 800 Alaskans support a
primary seatbelt law. In conclusion, she said that the bill
will save money and lives, and relayed that Senator Bunde
requests the committee's support.
Number 0739
CHAIR McGUIRE, in response to a question, read the language
currently in AS 28.05.095(e):
(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a
peace officer may not stop or detain a motor vehicle
to determine compliance with (a) of this section, or
issue a citation for a violation of (a) of this
section, unless the peace officer has probable cause
to stop or detain the motor vehicle other than for a
violation of (a) of this section.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM noted that four members of the House
Transportation Standing Committee voted "do not pass" when the
bill was reported from that committee, and predicted that many
legislators will think it is inappropriate to make a violation
of the seatbelt law a primary offense.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said, "If we were making this a crime, I
would be very worried, but it's just a violation." He said he
doesn't have any concerns about allowing law enforcement to pull
a car over just to issue "the equivalent of a speeding ticket."
Currently, law enforcement can pull someone over for speeding,
for running a red light, for having a non-working "blinker," and
for driving with a broken taillight; the bill simply puts a
violation of the seatbelt law in that same category. He opined
that it is a more compelling reason to pull someone over than
the aforementioned violations, and again pointed out that the
bill would not be making a violation of the law a crime. He
said he would like to move the bill out of committee and allow
it to get heard on the House floor.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG predicted that the bill will be used by
law enforcement as a pretext for pulling people over and
performing searches.
CHAIR McGUIRE noted that HCS SB 316(TRA) proposes to change AS
28.05.095(e) such that it will only apply to vehicles that are
not being operated on a highway. She relayed that she would
like the committee to discuss the issues raised by the bill
before adopting either version as the working document.
Number 0976
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked whether the definition of "highway"
would include the roads around areas like Bethel, Nome, Naknek,
King Salmon, and Dutch Harbor.
MS. WICKERSHAM relayed that although the definition of a highway
is relatively broad, the change proposed via HCS SB 316(TRA) is
intended to apply only in urban areas. Additionally, she
offered her belief that the current seatbelt law is only
applicable on car models made after 1960.
CHAIR McGUIRE noted that AS 28.05.095(c)(4) provides an
exception if the vehicle is not equipped with seatbelts. In
response to a comment she surmised that AS 28.05.095(e)
currently makes no distinction between vehicles driven on a
highway and vehicles driven elsewhere. She offered her belief
that HCS SB 316(TRA) simply creates the caveat that if it's the
primary offense, it pertained only to a vehicle on a highway.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that addition of the phrase,
"not being operated on a highway" creates a "negative
implication."
REPRESENTATIVE GARA predicted that HCS SB 316(TRA) won't be
applicable in many situations because the vast majority of
instances in which people are not wearing seatbelts are those in
which they are driving slowly, for example, while they are
driving in neighborhoods. By making the violation primary just
on a highway, it will be a primary offense only in places where
law enforcement won't notice [the violation] anyway, he
remarked, suggesting that the change proposed via HCS SB
316(TRA) will be ineffective.
MS. WICKERSHAM reiterated, however, that the definition of
"highway" - found in AS 19.45.001 - is incredibly broad; it
reads:
(9) "highway" includes a highway (whether included in
primary or secondary systems), road, street, trail,
walk, bridge, tunnel, drainage structure and other
similar or related structure or facility, and right-
of-way thereof, and further includes a ferry system,
whether operated solely inside the state or to connect
with a Canadian highway, and any such related
facility;
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM posited that the reason the House
Transportation Standing Committee altered the original bill was
to address the concerns of members who didn't want the bill to
apply equally to all areas of the state, for example, in the
Bush areas. He suggested that it is not realistic to expect
that the bill will have safety applications across the state
given that HCS SB 316(TRA) is intended to not apply in rural
areas of the state.
Number 1276
DON SMITH, Administrator, Highway Safety Office, Division of
Program Development, Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities (DOT&PF), said that [the department] is very much in
support of the bill. The bill is going to save lives, he
predicted, adding that the department is willing to accept the
language in HCS SB 316(TRA) as a compromise.
CHAIR McGUIRE remarked that nothing in the current definition of
"highway" appears to differentiate between urban and rural.
MR. SMITH concurred, and offered his belief that the current
definition is so broad it could mean almost anything including a
snow machine trail.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked what would happen in cases where
the seatbelt doesn't work.
MR. SMITH replied, "If you've got a supposedly installed
seatbelt, you better go down to the dealer and get it fixed, but
if you've got a car that doesn't have a seatbelt, you're not
[subject to] the law."
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS argued, however, that not all areas of
the state have a place to get seatbelts repaired.
MR. SMITH offered:
My feeling about this bill is [that] it's more an
issue of perception than [of] officers running around
ticketing people. ... What we're really after in this
bill is to reach the 16- to 26- or 30-year-old guy
that's running around in his pickup truck thinking
he's going to live forever and doesn't buckle [up],
and suddenly he's going to wake up one morning and
read about the fact that there is a law that he could
get a ticket.
It's only a $15 ticket unless you get stopped in
Anchorage; then it's a ... [$60 ticket]. ... My guess
is, [in] a lot of the rural communities, they're not
going to have [a] trooper or someone that's even going
to be out ticketing. ... I don't know how the
application will be, but in Anchorage and Fairbanks
and the major communities in Alaska, it'll have an
impact. And it's estimated that 10 percent more will
buckle [up] based on the fact that you have a primary
seatbelt law in your [state]. I just hope you pass it
out.
Number 1408
KEVIN E. QUINLAN, Chief, Safety Advocacy, National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), offered the following
testimony:
We're the independent accident investigation agency,
we've investigated lots of crashes in Alaska, mostly
in aviation, and we make recommendations to the states
as to what works and what doesn't work. We made this
recommendation to the state of Alaska in 1996 and
1997, and it does work. Mr. Smith said [there'd be]
about a 10 percent increase in [seatbelt] use; well,
that's the low end - it could be as high as a 15
percent increase. That saves lives, saves money, and
there's a new study out that says that this kind of
law will actually affect young drivers, including
those who use alcohol.
And I think the point is that this is a very effective
measure; it is on the [NTSB's] list of most wanted
safety recommendations, right up with things like
airplane fuel tank mixtures to prevent airplanes from
exploding. So we think this is the most important
thing that you can do in highway safety this year. It
will reduce ... serious injuries and fatalities, and
the cost savings could be very significant. ... Thank
you for allowing me to speak to the committee and I'd
be glad to handle any questions you may have.
Number 1505
RONNI SULLIVAN, Executive Director, Southern Region Emergency
Medical Services Council, Inc., after relaying that her
organization serves 132 communities in Southcentral and
Southwestern Alaska, said that when speaking about traffic
crashes, her organization speaks from the perspective of often
being first on the scene. She said she wanted to speak strongly
in support of the bill; the legislation will be good for the
people of Alaska, it will allow her organization to put its
efforts towards prevention, rather than just towards reacting to
tragedy. According to statistics compiled from the statewide
trauma registry, vehicle occupants in Alaska who aren't buckled
up are 19 times more likely to die in a crash. "I think the
numbers speak for themselves and we should do what we can to
move this bill through the session," she concluded.
Number 1582
ALLEN STOREY, Lieutenant, Central Office, Division of Alaska
State Troopers, Department of Public Safety (DPS), said that the
DPS strongly supports passage of SB 316 because the bill is an
important element in highway safety and preventing injuries and
deaths on the roadway. There are a lot of safety devices on
modern vehicles, but they are all built around the concept of a
person being secured in his/her seat with a seatbelt, he
reminded members.
Number 1610
MARTHA MOORE, Trauma Registry Coordinator, Community Health &
Emergency Medical Services, Division of Public Health,
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), said simply
that the DHSS supports SB 316, and that she would be happy to
provide the committee with statistics and answer any questions.
Number 1633
CINDY CASHEN, Executive Director, Juneau Chapter, Mothers
Against Drunk Driving (MADD), said that MADD supports SB 316,
because a seatbelt is the best defense against drunk driving.
Adults who do not buckle up are sending a message to children
that it is alright not to use seatbelts. The probability of a
fatally injured child being unrestrained are more than twice as
likely when the adult driving was unrestrained, she remarked,
adding that studies have found that states with primary seatbelt
laws increase average seatbelt usage by 9-14 percent.
CHAIR McGUIRE, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on SB 316.
Number 1676
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON moved to adopt HCS SB 316(TRA) as the
working document. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM expressed doubt regarding the veracity of
the proffered statistics, characterizing them as subjective. He
said he doesn't agree with the argument that the change the bill
proposes is acceptable simply because a violation will only
result in a citation, because the bill will provide law
enforcement with more opportunities to pull people over. He
suggested that if safety is the primary goal of the bill, then
100 percent of the monies obtained as a result of a primary
seatbelt law being enacted should be spent on educating the
public regarding seatbelt use. He relayed that while growing up
on a homestead, and later, when employed as a truck driver, he
didn't use seatbelts, and opined that seatbelt use in such
circumstances is unsafe.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS said he'd like to offer the following
additional language: "This subsection does not apply where a
seatbelt is inoperable and there is no business that can repair
the seatbelt along the road system where the automobile is
located". He posited that such language would address
situations in which someone living in a small community doesn't
have access to a place where seatbelts can be repaired.
MS. WICKERSHAM remarked, "Because of the unique demographics of
Alaska, I think that the sponsor would not have a problem with
[that additional language]."
Number 1957
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS made a motion to adopt the forgoing as
[Conceptual Amendment 1]. He remarked, however, that he would
willing to accept alternative language that gets to the same
point.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG questioned whether [Conceptual Amendment 1]
would encourage people living in such areas to simply destroy
their seatbelts.
CHAIR McGUIRE suggested to Representative Samuels that he
withdraw [Conceptual Amendment 1] and research possible
alternative language that could be offered as an amendment on
the House floor.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS agreed to do so. [Conceptual Amendment 1
was treated as withdrawn.]
Number 1999
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON moved to report HCS SB 316(TRA) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
zero fiscal note. There being no objection, HCS SB 316(TRA) was
reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
HB 563 - LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURE & ETHICS GUIDELINES
Number 2025
CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 563, "An Act relating to open meetings
guidelines applicable to legislators, to the confidentiality of
complaints and proceedings involving alleging violations of AS
24.60, and to hearings on formal charges by the Select Committee
on Legislative Ethics or its subcommittees."
Number 2030
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG, Alaska State Legislature,
speaking as Chair of the House Rules Standing Committee, sponsor
of HB 563, relayed that he is the House majority member on the
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics. He said that HB 563
pertains to the issues of open meetings, jurisdiction,
legislators' conduct relating to open meetings, and the lack of
any current guidelines for the Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics regarding jurisdiction and adjudication of complaints.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG mentioned that earlier [last] year,
Representative Croft requested Legislative Legal and Research
Services to provide an opinion on whether the Select Committee
on Legislative Ethics has jurisdiction of complaints regarding
open meetings violations. Additionally, the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics had requested a legal opinion from its own
legal counsel on this issue. Both opinions, in the main, agreed
that the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics does have
jurisdiction regarding open meetings violations. As a result of
the legal opinion it received from its own counsel, the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics voted to assert jurisdiction in
this area.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG mentioned that he'd voted in favor of
that because he believes that the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics' jurisdiction on this issue exists within
statute and needs to be asserted should any complaints arise.
He added:
I can say on the record [that] there is at least one
complaint on this particular issue that's become
public information. I'd just remind the committee
that I'm unable to speak about anything if, in fact,
there are any complaints on this issue, because of the
confidentiality that's required by statute. So I'd
ask the committee [to] respect that and try not to
couch any questions in such a manner that would put me
in a position where I would be breaking the law.
Whether there is or not [a complaint] is beside the
question.
Number 2147
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that in spite of the fact that for
the last 10 years the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics has
been statutorily required to submit open meetings guidelines to
the legislature for ratification, the legislature has yet to
ratify any of the proposed guidelines that have been submitted.
He noted that the current statute regarding this issue says that
adoption of initial guidelines shall be undertaken by the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics, and that a legal opinion from
Tam Cook, Legislative Legal and Research Services, indicates
that initial guidelines are to be submitted to the legislature
for approval. Furthermore, according to Ms. Cook's opinion,
once guidelines are adopted, the legislature cannot review any
revisions to those guidelines. In other words, he remarked, the
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics could make modifications
to the guidelines and the legislature would have no control over
those modifications.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG characterized this aspect as being
similar to what occurs with regard to regulation writing, and as
a defect in the current statute's construction, suggesting that
it is one of the reasons that guidelines have yet to be adopted.
He mentioned that members have in their packets a copy of the
latest proposed guidelines - dated August 28, 2003 - from the
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics, though these proposed
guidelines have not yet been adopted by the current legislature.
In response to a question, he relayed that the Select Committee
on Legislative Ethics did present proposed guidelines to the
legislature by the statutorily set deadline of January 16, 1995,
but the legislature never approved them, nor has the legislature
approved any of the proposed guidelines that have been submitted
since then.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG mentioned that in 2000, the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics "recognized the futility" of the
efforts in drafting guidelines, and sent a letter to the
legislature indicating that the Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics' efforts on this issue were not meeting with consensus
[from the legislature] on what those guidelines should be and
was therefore recommending to the legislature that the
legislature adopt its own guidelines. He relayed that he sits
on a Select Committee on Legislative Ethics' subcommittee, the
purpose of which is to again draft guidelines for submission to
the legislature; the subcommittee has been meeting for
approximately three months, but has yet to find consensus among
its members regarding the definitions of "political strategy,"
"meetings," and other basic terms. So although he has made
recommendations to the subcommittee, many of which have found
favor in large part, he noted, there is still a lack of
consensus.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG opined that since the Select Committee
on Legislative Ethics has yet to agree on proposed guidelines
for submission to the legislature, it is incumbent on the
legislature to resolve this issue by passing statutory
guidelines as was suggested by the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics in 2000.
TAPE 04-75, SIDE B
Number 2369
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG opined that doing so will ensure that
members of the legislature will know what those guidelines are.
Currently there is a statutory outline, but there are no
guidelines giving direction regarding legislators' conduct. "We
don't know, frankly, whether or not we are even in breach of
anything - it's a matter or conjecture - so we need some
guidelines and, frankly, even the latest iterations are
relatively broad," he remarked. He relayed that with HB 563, he
has endeavored to simplify the issue by keeping the proposed
guidelines to minimum - defining what a meeting is and what
political strategy is, and specifying certain types of meetings
that might take place which should be exempt from any scrutiny
under the open meetings provisions - and keeping in mind the
spirit of the current statute.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG relayed that there are some proposed
amendments to HB 563, one of which he agrees should be adopted
after being modified as it has the potential to strengthen [the
bill]. His mentioned that his intent with HB 563 is to reflect
current practices in the context of the current statute - AS
24.60.037 - which reads in part: "The guidelines must permit
closed caucuses and private, informal meetings or conversations
between legislators in which political strategy is discussed".
He observed that the problematic aspect of this provision is in
determining what kind of conduct can take place in the
aforementioned closed meetings. Guidelines would address this
problem, he opined, adding that he has endeavored to have HB 563
specify what constitutes political strategy; currently, page 2,
lines 3-9, of HB 563 reads:
For purposes of this subsection, "political strategy"
includes organization of the houses, assignment of
committee membership, scheduling of bills, vehicles
for adoptions, House-Senate relations, other
procedural matters, caucus operations, meetings
between majority and minority caucus leaders, meetings
between majority and minority caucus leaders of both
houses, meetings with the governor, deliberations with
regard to strategy, and discussions of issues in the
context of strategy.
Number 2272
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG mentioned that HB 563 currently defines
what a meeting is - "For purposes of the legislative open
meetings guidelines, a meeting occurs when a majority of the
members of a legislative body is present and action, including
voting, is taken" - and what a meeting is not - "a gathering of
members of a legislative body for purely ministerial or social
purposes where there is no deliberation of policy issues; or ...
forums where members of a legislative body have been invited to
address a group on legislative issues or concerns".
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG offered:
One of the problems you have to keep in mind, if you
look back at even the original proposed guidelines,
was that this situation becomes very difficult to try
to enforce when, in fact, if you have numbers of
people - if you have like three or, for example, this
committee, if you had four people that were members of
this committee - that happened to be talking in the
hallway together, you ... could tripwire a complaint
were you not careful. And that's where ... it became
a problem and I think why the initial guidelines were
rejected, because they were so tightly drafted that it
... prohibited, ... conversation between various
members on anything related to public policy.
I think [we] all have our ... policy wants and [are]
interested in political activity, and so to chill our
First Amendment ... right [to] discuss things, I don't
think is intended. As a matter of fact, we even have
... constitutional immunities provided ... in our own
[Alaska] State Constitution and the [U.S.]
Constitution and case law .... And there's a reason
for that - we should be able to conduct [ourselves] in
such a way [so as] to formulate public policy. This
comes into conflict when the concept of open meetings
is discussed and [of] what should be done behind
closed doors.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG continued:
In my opinion, the open meetings principles, which I
think has guided us, is, we do not make final
decisions in the form of votes, or take votes, ...
behind closed doors. The votes that occur in this
particular building are done in the light of day, and
it becomes a very difficult thing to try to draw ...
statutory bright lines to say what should be closed
and what isn't, and be able to have [it] so your
conduct isn't scrutinized in some "Big Brother" type
[format].
Number 2178
[As a] matter of fact, there [were] two proposals
brought before the subcommittee ... this year, ... one
of which indicated they thought there should be a
videotape camera in the caucus rooms, and that those
videotapes could be made public after the session. ...
I ... really resented even the suggestion. ... And
another [proposal] was to have [caucuses] tape
recorded [so] ... someone could oversee what we were
doing. ... The fact of the matter is, the public
should elect ethical people to public office; that's
the number one ... [way to] have good, ethical
conduct.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG observed that finding a balance can be
very difficult. He said he believes that the open meetings
principles that the legislature follows should be enforced, and
that making certain decisions behind closed doors should be
prohibited. At the same time, however, there should also be
forums in which certain discussions can take place free from
public scrutiny, such as discussions pertaining to political
strategy and organization of the houses. Discussion and voting
on matters of state policy should be done in the light of day,
he remarked, adding that the concept of committee hearings is
the foundation of the Alaska State Legislature. He offered his
belief that the original statute left open the question of
whether the legislature could even organize before the start of
the legislative session, and opined that the legislature should
have the ability to do so and that there should be at least a
modicum of confidentiality in that process.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG listed several procedural activities
that the legislature engages in which could be considered
political strategy, such as committee membership assignment,
scheduling of bills in committee, choosing legislative vehicles
for adoption, and moving up and down the calendar. In spite of
the fact that almost anything could be considered political
strategy, it is still important to define that term so as to
allow the legislature to continue to conduct business. He
characterized the budget process as one that allows a greater
participation by the minority than can be found in any other
state, and mentioned some of the different informal coalitions
that can form during a legislative session.
Number 1935
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said of the aforementioned that they are
historic, traditional elements of the legislature, and opined
that they are not well served by opening their discussions to
public scrutiny. He warned the committee that a couple of the
issues that must be addressed are what is meant by "action" and
the concept of voting: "what is the decision-making matrix that
we're dealing with when we're going to try to proscribe
activities, or allow [them]." These things must be clear in
order for members of the legislature to understand them and know
what conduct is and isn't permitted. He offered his
understanding that the courts had indicated that they did not
have jurisdiction over the legislature's internal activities;
instead, it was left up to the legislature itself to fashion a
method by which to oversee its members' conduct and, hence, the
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics was formed.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG called the open meetings provision of
statute an important provision, even though it has yet to be
fully enforced. He predicted that adoption of HB 563 will
engender some modifications of legislators' conduct, but not
many; in the main, he posited, the current statute has been
followed, over the years, to the best of the ability of the
various caucuses and House and Senate leadership. He mentioned
that he would never participate in voting during a caucus
meeting because he believes doing so would clearly be against
the law, but allowing for the free exchange of ideas is very
important in a caucus setting.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG opined that passing HB 563 this year is
very important because members of the legislature will know what
is expected of them, and it will enable the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics to do its work and will give it the authority
to enforce the law. He mentioned that members' packets include
the aforementioned legal opinion that the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics requested from its legal counsel, and that
one of the issues addressed in that opinion is what would be
used for guidelines if the legislature had not yet approved any
that the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics had proffered to
date. The opinion states in part: "In short, it is within the
Committee's sole discretion to determine what the "open meeting
principles" are that apply to the Alaska Legislature ... it is
our opinion that the Committee may develop and rely on any
criteria that it determines appropriate to decide the merits of
a complaint alleging a violation of the open meetings law."
Number 1812
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG offered his belief that that portion of
the opinion means that the Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics, having asserted jurisdiction, can take up any complaint
it wishes and make up its own rules. He characterized this as
being contrary to the statute, and urged the committee to adopt
guidelines so as to give the Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics direction. He posited that the guidelines encompassed in
HB 563 follow the spirit of the original law and are consistent
with how the legislature wants to conduct itself and with its
current practices.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA, on the issue of "chit sheets," said: "To
me, the worst kind of closed meeting is the one that results in
a predetermined vote, so that we know before the House floor
[session] starts how people are going to vote. And would you
consider amending this to prevent people from binding themselves
to a vote before they actually vote on the House floor?"
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said no, adding:
That's not a vote. ... It's in large part a matter of
educational representation and a part of the process
of acquiring votes in order to take a bill to the
floor. As [House Rules Standing Committee] chairman,
I require a chit sheet to make sure that we have
adequate votes for a bill to go on the floor normally.
Not on every bill, as you know, but [I do it] because
of the order of business and the magnitude of
business. Well over a thousand bills have been
introduced in this legislature, and there's the
committee process to go through; once those bills are
vetted through the committee process, before we put
them on the floor, we want to make sure that there's
adequate support - to not take up the time of the
legislature to debate those on the floor. ...
Number 1741
I have been here long enough to see bills fail on the
floor notwithstanding a belief that there [were] ...
adequate votes. And we also have had the pleasure,
this year, of having several major issues come forward
without predetermined results. I can appreciate
perhaps your frustration as a member of the minority,
Representative Gara, in this regard, but this whole
concept of chit sheets being a bad thing is a
misconception about how the process works here and
what they're meant to do. They're ministerial in
practice only, and have to do with how the members
here can cooperate and interact with each other;
they're educational, and they are administrative.
They are not a matter of binding anybody in a formal
sense other than their own word. ... It's a
traditional practice we've used and [it] is relatively
informal.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said he disagreed and that he respected the
disagreement. "Though I think the worst scenarios are where
somebody is convinced on the floor to vote another way but
they've already [a] signed chit and [so] they can't, and we hear
that all the time," he added.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM said he'd sent around a chit sheet recently
and several members of the minority had signed it but told him
they weren't sure if they would actually vote for the bill in
question. Therefore, he opined, signing a chit sheet is not a
vote, and offered his belief that a chit sheet is used for the
purpose of getting a bill calendared.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA argued, however, that many legislators use
chit sheets to bind members to a vote. He said he would respect
the use of a chit sheet to poll members about whether they feel
a particular bill should go to the floor for debate.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said, "A chit sheet represents a promise
between two legislators."
REPRESENTATIVE GARA, on the issue of caucuses, offered his
belief that the bill says a meeting is not an open meeting if it
involves the discussion of issues in the context of strategy or
if it involves less than a majority of the body. He asked
whether the closed majority caucuses that occur now would still
be allowed under the bill.
Number 1561
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that in the main, both majority and
minority closed caucuses would still be permitted "with the
exception of certain areas which I consider educational." He
offered the following example: "Just the other day, we had a
visit from a Senator who wished to talk about a bill; that is
not political strategy, in my opinion, and that should be open."
He remarked that another issue to consider is the timing of when
caucuses are called, since they are spontaneous meetings. He
said he agrees, however, that certain types of activities that
sometimes occur during closed caucuses perhaps should "be open"
when there isn't any "true" political strategy [discussion]
going on. Notwithstanding this, there is still the practical
problem of deciding at what point during a caucus should the
door be opened and when should it be closed.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pondered whether that decision should
fall to the presiding officer of the caucus and whether such a
stipulation should be put in statute. He surmised that many of
the legislature's activities are a matter of custom and
tradition and should probably not be set in statute. He posited
that adoption of HB 563 will cause only some slight changes with
regard to caucuses.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG asked about the terms "discuss" and
"deliberate".
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG offered that "discussing" issues or
subjects is part of the original statute, and that he is relying
on the dictionary definition of that term. He offered his
belief that "deliberation" seems to imply advocacy for an issue.
He suggested that the meaning of those terms is expressive of
certain conduct, and relayed that the original statute only
addresses the act of discussion. He opined that the act of
deliberating should also be allowed and addressed in statute.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG asked for clarification about what is meant
by the phrase, on page 2, line 8, "deliberations with regard to
strategy".
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG indicated that that could be read to
mean, "deliberations with regard to political strategy", and
mentioned that he would accept an amendment to that effect.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG asked whether the same could be said of the
phrase, on page 2, lines 8-9, "discussions of issues in the
contest of strategy".
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said yes.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG asked whether "policy issues", as used on
page 3, line 17, means the same thing as "political strategy",
as defined on page 2, lines 3-9.
Number 1353
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG offered his belief that it does not mean
the same thing; rather, the term "policy issues" would encompass
situations in which, for example, "you have a social purpose and
you're debating the merits of seatbelts and whether they're good
or bad - that's a deliberative discussion on policy ... and it
shouldn't be prohibited." He elaborated on that example, "If
you have ... the quorum of this committee at a reception at the
Baranof [Hotel], and you were talking about seatbelts, ... we
don't want to give rise a complaint; it doesn't amount to a
closed meeting." He indicated that subparagraph (B), on page 3,
lines 18-19, addresses similar situations.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG surmised, then, that "political strategy" is
not the same as "policy issues".
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG remarked, "It can be, though." He
added, "You should only be able to talk about those in the
context of 'political strategy'."
REPRESENTATIVE OGG offered his understanding that "you want to
be able to talk about political strategy and perhaps have
discussion of issues, which may not be political strategy."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said, "If somebody wants to come to our
caucus and give a pitch on the seatbelt law, that's not
political strategy.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said, "To me there's a bright line of: if
we meet in caucus to discuss the merits of an issue and there's
back and forth, to me that should be open." He asked
Representative Rokeberg whether he agrees.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied:
If it's going to be closed, it should be discussed
within the context of a political strategy. But it's
hard to get a bright line there because, when you're
discussing [an] issue, many times you ... talk about
it in a political context. But if it was purely
deliberative, like presentational or something, and/or
there was even discussions about it in terms of ...
questions from the audience and so forth, then it
becomes deliberative. Then that should be open. But
it's hard to draw that line.
Number 1239
REPRESENTATIVE GARA responded: "Forget about an audience. It's
just a group of ... 21 legislators ... and they're debating the
merits of a bill. Some people are arguing it's a good idea for
these reasons, some people are arguing it's a bad idea for these
reasons, [and] there's back and forth ... on the issue.
Shouldn't that be open?"
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied:
Yes. However, here's what happens: you can discuss
something in a political context, and then you drop
over to deliberative type back and forth, then you
drop back into the political thing. So there's
problems there. ... It's because these types of
exchanges and these discussions can be both ...
meritorious and/or strategic. So it's hard to draw a
bright line there. ... It's so intertwined. ... I
suggest ... [limiting it to] strictly informational
type things and things of that nature that are
basically like that. ... If there is a member standing
up pitching his own bill in a caucus, that should be
open. ... I think we need to adopt these guidelines
and [adapt] our practices to meet them, and I think we
can make progress there and build public credibility.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM said:
I object somewhat to the idea that we're up to some
kind of skullduggery because we discuss something; I
just really ... find that an outrageous accusation
that we get in the press and different places. Just
because we are discussing something doesn't mean we're
trying to pervert the system or (indisc. - paper
shuffling) create some kind of a bad situation and
policy for the state of Alaska. I think it's just
outrageous that we get that accusation. ...
Number 1015
DENNIS "SKIP" COOK, Vice Chair, Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics, relayed that the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
has been submitting proposed guidelines, annually, as required
by statute, but has never received any feedback from the
legislature. He added, "We expected that they might take the
guidelines, debate them, have public hearings on them, and
develop a final set of guidelines, but that really didn't
happen." In the year 2000, after six years of submitting
proposed guidelines, since there had been no action by the
legislature, the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics sent the
letter dated August 11, 2000, suggesting that the legislature
develop it's own guidelines.
MR. COOK mentioned that until this year, there weren't any
complaints regarding open meetings. When those complaints came
forth, it raised the question of whether the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics even had jurisdiction over such complaints.
He concurred that the aforementioned legal opinions both said
that the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics does have
jurisdiction over complaints pertaining to open meetings and has
a statutory obligation to respond to such complaints. These
opinions lead to a renewed effort to develop guidelines, he
remarked, adding that the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
is right in the middle of doing that. The current efforts
attempt to address the definitions of, among other things,
"political strategy", "discussion", and "meetings".
MR. COOK offered that as far as the [Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics] is concerned, in some ways it would be
easiest if the legislature would either approve some proposed
guidelines or create its own and provide them to the Select
Committee on Legislative Ethics so that it had something
concrete. However, he remarked, "The problem I see here is that
... right while we're in the middle of it, and the legislature's
wrapping up it session, well suddenly there's a bill, and ...
there really isn't time for that bill to be fully debated." He
noted that he has only just seen the bill today, and suggested
that there are some problems.
Number 0749
MR. COOK elaborated:
One that just came up a moment ago that I sort of see
is that Representative Rokeberg ... seemed to be
saying that ... meetings with deliberations in them
should be open whereas meetings with discussions,
maybe of political strategy, shouldn't be, but on page
2, in subsection (c), he's introduced the word
"deliberation" into what can happen in a closed
caucus. Whereas the current statute, with which we've
been working over the years - [AS] 24.60.037 - ...
doesn't talk about deliberations being allowable in
closed meetings; it only talks about "discussion". So
then you get the fine line of where do the
deliberations start in [the] discussion. I think
introducing "deliberations" into subsection (c) is
going to cause a lot of confusion that wasn't there
before.
And there are some other points that I think Joyce
Anderson might address. One of them, that is at page
4, on the proceedings of the [Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics] being confidential, the language
... proposed at the end by Representative Rokeberg ...
adds, "Except to the extent that the confidentiality
provisions are waived by the subject of the complaint,
if a complainant violates any confidentiality
provision, the committee shall immediately dismiss the
complaint." Well, ... in the current law, there
aren't any confidentiality statutes with regard to the
complainant; they all relate to the committee, and our
proceedings ... relating to the complaint (indisc.)
are confidential.
CHAIR McGUIRE asked, "But don't you instruct the complainants?"
MR. COOK said that according to the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics' interpretation of current law, it can only
inform the complainant that the complaint is confidential once
it is brought to Select Committee on Legislative Ethics. "What
I'm saying is that right now, there is no specific, in the law,
... confidentiality of the complainant; it would have to be
added somewhere else than the way it's added here, I believe,"
he remarked.
Number 0587
CHAIR McGUIRE responded:
But isn't it true, though, that you ... have made the
leap, in any event, in practice, that because the law
... dictates that the complaint will remain
confidential ... once it's in the [Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics'] hands, that you've made that leap
to instruct complainants, and those who might be
complained against, to keep it confidential.
MR. COOK replied:
No, ... I don't believe we've gone that far, because
we didn't feel the law could. We've debated on
whether we ... can do that, and decided that the most
we could [do] was to cite the statute that says we are
bound by confidentiality - within the committee. Part
of the problem I see here is, ... even if we passed a
law that said the complainants will keep it
confidential, does that mean that if they're going to
make a complaint to the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics, they cannot speak to anybody about
it ever, they can't discuss that with a friend? I
don't know how you'd -- where do you draw the line
then? ...
We did, in one opinion, sort of speak with disapproval
of signing a complaint on television, which ... is the
extreme. On the other hand, I'm not sure we would
ever get a complaint before us that had not been
discussed by the complainant with somebody before it
got ... filed. And if that automatically causes
dismissal, we'd have a lot (indisc.) work going on to
find out if anybody ever knew about that complaint
before it was filed.
CHAIR McGUIRE asked Mr. Cook whether he could suggest some
alternate language that would address extreme situations in
which a complainant does not maintain confidentiality.
MR. COOK said he'd not thought that through, but acknowledged
that there should be discussion about where that line ought to
be drawn; he suggested that the Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics would have that discussion while developing proposed
guidelines.
Number 0353
CHAIR McGUIRE suggested viewing a breach of confidentiality by
the complainant in much the same light as a breach of the Fourth
Amendment, wherein search and seizure can only be conducted with
probable cause or the evidence gathered therein will be thrown
out. She indicated that she wants something put in place to
discourage breach of confidentiality by the complainant; without
some assurance that future complainants will not go to the media
to showcase their complaints, the role of the Select Committee
on Legislative Ethics will be reduced to one of being a
political weapon.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS offered: "I would think that before a
complaint is filed, it's just friends talking politics, ... but
after the complaint is filed, ... it seems there has to be some
confidentiality going both ways or [the television situation]
just happens over and over again; ... it becomes, then, a
political tool ...." He asked what other states do in this
regard.
MR. COOK responded:
I agree with you that once the complaint is filed
(indisc.) the committee, then proceedings before the
committee are confidential. And, to the extent that
the complainant is a party to those proceedings, they
cannot go out and talk about what [is] happening in
the committee process. In a way, in my own mind, I
have to sort of liken it to the closed hearings I've
participated [in, in] court (indisc. - member speaking
over) an adoption hearing or a child proceeding that
is closed in so far as the court proceeding: ... the
public isn't allowed in, people are not supposed to
talk outside about what happened in that proceeding
although people outside may know the proceeding is
going on, they may know that ... there is something
going on in that forum that is closed.
... I think part of the desire here is that
legislators don't want people to know that there have
been complaints made, and I can understand that. But
until the complaint hits our office and gets stamped
in, it's not part of what the original statutory
language covers because the statutory language [refers
to] ... proceedings before the committee, (indisc.) so
... there has to be some new legislation prohibiting
conduct before it gets to us. And then you get into
all sorts of free speech issues, and I don't know
quite ... where that would go.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG asked whether the current statute precludes
considering deliberations as part of discussion.
TAPE 04-76, SIDE A
Number 0001
MR. COOK said it may not. He, too, relayed that AS 24.60.037
currently says in part, "The guidelines must permit closed
caucuses and private, informal meetings or conversations between
legislators in which political strategy is discussed", but noted
that it doesn't say, "discussed and deliberated". He remarked
that proposed AS 24.60.037 is broader than current statute, but
suggested that if "discussion" were to be defined in the bill as
including "deliberation", then discussion could also mean
deliberations. He noted that the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics has not yet debated the issue of broadening
the statute in that fashion.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG asked Mr. Cook whether creating guidelines
during an investigation of a complaint will result in ex post
facto laws or guidelines.
MR. COOK said the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics is
considering that issue.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA relayed that he would like to revisit the
issue of chit sheets.
Number 0231
CHAIR McGUIRE recessed the meeting at 6:00 p.m. for the purpose
of attending a House floor session.
Number 0239
CHAIR McGUIRE called the House Judiciary Standing Committee back
to order at 8:50 p.m. Representatives McGuire, Ogg, and Samuels
were present at the call back to order. Representatives
Anderson, Holm, Gara, and Gruenberg arrived as the meeting was
in progress.
CHAIR MCGUIRE relayed that the committee would accept written
testimony on HB 563 from those who were unable to testify
earlier during the meeting.
Number 0310
JUSTIN ROBERTS, Alaska Common Cause, offered the following:
We believe that open meetings is the single most
important factor in a healthy democracy, and not
because of suspected skullduggery, but because, as
evidenced tonight, ... there's sincere debate that
would genuinely impress the public, that ... the
public ought to see. We believe that this bill has a
potential to help open the political process to
Alaskans. And while we would have liked it to have
gone through the [Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics], which has both public and legislative
members, I think that the bill, if it passes tonight,
will do something significant by having, for the first
time, guidelines in place, since 1995. And I guess
basically we see the opportunity ... here to clarify
what is now an ambiguous system and to (indisc. -
paper shuffling) guidelines in place.
We do have some concerns with the bill as it's
currently drafted, and we've been working [with]
Representative Rokeberg on some of those changes. The
most important one, as far as I'm concerned, is on
page 1, line 12, of the bill, and that's the
definition of a meeting. And the problem is that the
way the bill is written, ... in [subsection] (a) it
says that ... meetings of the legislature must be
open, and then it defines a meeting in subsection (b)
to require that a vote is taken. So if a vote's not
taken, it's not a meeting, it's not subject to the
guidelines at all. So any deliberations, any, like,
what we were talking about earlier, with somebody from
the Senate coming over and talking about a bill, it's
not a meeting unless there's a vote, so it's not
subject to the guidelines. ...
MR. ROBERTS added:
The real problem area is ... this lines 12 and 13:
"and action, including voting, is taken". And we're
trying to figure out some way to do it to say, "and
action, including voting, is or could be taken" - or
... something like that, where it doesn't require that
an actual vote was taken, where it's just the fact
that you have a quorum of members there who ... could
be making decisions on legislation - and then it's a
meeting. And then, at that point, you look to the
exceptions in subsection (c) on whether or not it's
political strategy or something else.
Number 0509
CHAIR McGUIRE offered, "So, an action was or could be taken."
She mentioned that there is a forthcoming amendment that might
address that issue, via use of the phrase "and discusses pending
legislation", but pointed out that she has some concern
regarding the amendment's present wording. She noted that at a
recent social function hosted by a legislator, at which a
majority of legislators were present, there was discussion of
pending legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA remarked:
The concerns actually go all over the place. I mean,
really, in just an informal caucus meeting,
technically, you ... aren't really taking action, or
really you're probably polling - you're not really
voting because you're not pressing a red or a green
button. So I don't know that ... even use of the
words "action" or -- I think that this really narrowly
defines ... when an open meeting would be required,
because I think technically you could argue [that] any
caucus meeting, where you're sitting there discussing
issues, if you're not going to take an action or vote,
is closed because you're not taking an action or
voting. ... I think the "action" and "voting" parts
are problematic.
MR. ROBERTS noted that if the Uniform Rules weren't in place,
the same thing would apply to a committee; in other words, the
committee could discuss all the bills on its calendar and, as
long as no votes were taken, it wouldn't be a meeting and
therefore wouldn't have to be open to the public.
CHAIR McGUIRE acknowledged that point.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG indicated that he and Mr. Roberts would
work on that issue.
Number 0601
MR. ROBERTS went on to say:
The other section that I -- and we'd kind of talked
about this before, on page 2, lines 8 and 9, ... where
it refers to "deliberations with regard to strategy,
and discussions of issues in the context of strategy",
I guess part of it is [that] ... I'm not totally clear
what it means ... because political strategy is
defined as discussions regarding strategy. [This]
seems kind of circular and hard for me to -- I guess I
just don't understand how that would be interpreted in
practice.
CHAIR McGUIRE asked Mr. Roberts whether he is concerned about
the definition of "political strategy".
MR. ROBERTS said he did not know whether those first items -
organization of the houses, assignment of committee membership,
scheduling of bills - are examples of political strategy, and
whether the section on deliberations and discussions is
referring back to those items. He then referred to page 3,
lines 10-11, and noted that it says a committee or group of
legislators meeting with the governor or staff from the
governor's office isn't a legislative body. According to his
interpretation, he said, such a meeting wouldn't be subject to
the open meetings guidelines since such a meeting wouldn't be a
meeting of a legislative body [as defined on page 1, subsections
(a) and (b)]. In other words, simply by inviting someone in
from the governor's office, voting could take place in a closed
caucus. He surmised that such was not the intent of the
sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG indicated that a forthcoming amendment
would address that issue.
MR. ROBERTS concluded:
The only other thing [is], ... the committee had
talked about some system of monitoring, and I know
there are major issues with the taping or independent
monitors ..., but one suggestion that had been raised
was whether or not ... you could do the same thing as
with an executive session, where you'd go in and say
"this" is what we're going to talk about and then vote
on whether or not you'd go into a closed caucus for a
certain reason. ...
Number 0704
REPRESENTATIVE OGG asked for clarification.
MR. ROBERTS said:
I guess what I was thinking is that you'd have the
caucus come together and the initial ... starting of
the meeting would be open, and ... then, at that
point, ... there'd be a motion to go into closed
session for a certain type of political discussion,
which would be listed in one of these ... lines
outlined in subsection (c): that "we're going to
close session to discuss political strategy on the
assignment of committee membership," or "closed
session to discuss ... political strategy on caucus
operations." ... I guess I was just thinking that at
that point you'd have a record of what was discussed
on a certain day and what the exceptions were.
CHAIR McGUIRE remarked:
One of the things that's so difficult about this is,
at some point, regardless of any bill that we do or
how detailed it is, there'll be a certain amount of
trust that goes into it. And that's inherent ... in
the political process in general; ... you'll elect
your representatives and hope that they will abide by
the laws and act in your best interest. What would be
nice about this is to have something to refer to,
because I personally know that I don't, and I know
that my colleagues here don't, engage in any of this
on purpose.
... A lot of this has not been defined, and customs of
the legislature have been developed over the years,
and, in many cases, knowledge of the rules are passed
from one ... group of legislators to the next, and
sometimes without any real understanding of where they
came from. ... We have these interesting debates on
the floor ..., and you go to [Mason's Manual of
Legislative Procedure], and you realize that there
isn't a rule ..., [but] a custom [has] ... been
developed through the legislature through the years.
So I understand your point, and we'll see where we can
go, but I think at some point, regardless, ... we're
going to have leave off, with [an] amount of trust,
somewhere.
Number 0984
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked how Mr. Robert's suggestion would
work as a practical matter, for example, for meetings of the
Bush caucus when the issue being discussed involves capital
projects for rural Alaska.
MR. ROBERTS clarified that his suggestion would apply in the
context of majority or minority caucuses. He reiterated that he
envisions a caucus meeting being open to begin with and then the
caucus could vote on whether to close it for the purpose of
addressing an issue as described in subsection (c). In response
to comments, he noted that a legislative body includes a caucus.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA added that legislative body is defined [in
subsection (g)(1)(A)]. He expressed a preference for having Mr.
Roberts's suggestion only apply to majority and minority caucus
meetings. He went on to say:
One of my problems with the bill is, it talks about
all the things that aren't open meetings but ... we
really need a statement of what is an open meeting.
And ... I think we would all generally agree that what
we want is for the public to be able to listen as
legislators discuss the merits of an issue before the
legislature. And certainly, over coffee, ... you
might talk about family, 500 other things, and then
mention an issue; that's ... not what the public is
talking about. What the public is talking about is
when [a] primary purpose of the meeting is to discuss
the merits of issues. ...
So I think we need a statement in here that says,
"where a primary purpose of the meeting is to discuss
the merits and demerits of an issue before the
legislature with legislation, amendments, potential
legislation, potential amendments, then that's open".
... I think ... we have to have a flat statement of
what's open, because, otherwise, all you have to do,
the way the bill's written right now, is have a
discussion about the issues that the public wants to
hear about and then throw in something about strategy
for a second or so, and all of a sudden it's closed.
Number 1213
REPRESENTATIVE GARA concluded:
So I think we have to say, "whatever the exceptions
are, the rule is, if a primary purpose of a meeting is
to discuss issues before the legislature" - and those
issues would be legislation, amendments, potential
legislation, potential amendments, the substance of
issues - "that's open", or else I don't think this
bill gets us anywhere. And ... these qualifiers that
say it's not an open meeting unless action and voting
are taken, ... this doesn't open any meetings, the way
it's written.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM reiterated his earlier comments about
perceived "skullduggery," and predicted it would be difficult to
have any kind of strategy if all meetings were open, that the
same level of discussion wouldn't take place. He mentioned the
costs of running for and holding political offices, costs both
financial and emotional, and gave examples of how times have
changed with regard to how legislators conduct themselves. He
indicated that he is offended and outraged that someone could
accuse a legislator of wrongdoing and the legislator would have
no recourse.
MR. ROBERTS responded:
As far as I'm concerned, the (indisc. - paper
shuffling) issue is not skullduggery as much as it is
the public being able to see the deliberative process,
and constituents being able to see the way the
representatives stand on issues. And I think that
applies both to the caucus system as well as seeing
what happens on the floor of the House and the
committee process. I think all three are involved
deliberations and involve watching to see what your
representatives believe on certain bills or certain
issues. But I don't think the point is skullduggery.
CHAIR McGUIRE noted that the issues raised are not unique to
Alaska, adding that the government is becoming more open, more
accessible; many things are available on the Internet, meetings
can be streamed live on the Internet, and there are now cameras
in many committee rooms. According to conversations she's had
with members, she relayed, when cameras first came into
committee rooms, it was very controversial and a lot of members
felt it was an affront. Times are changing, however. With
regard to HB 563, she said, "This is a good idea, ... let's get
it finalized and get it out."
Number 1482
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG mentioned that under the Uniform Rules,
the legislature and any formal group recognized by the Uniform
Rules has the ability to go into executive session. Therefore,
he opined, it would be redundant to include language stating
that such could be done by caucuses. Offering that the Uniform
Rules are "a creature of our constitution," requiring a two-
thirds vote, he pointed out that one of the provisions of HB 563
states that the Uniform Rules take precedent over any
guidelines. Mason's Manual of Legislative Procedure is a part
of the Uniform rules, so the procedural elements that exist
within the legislature's rulemaking doctrine are superior to
anything that the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics can
come up with, he added.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG offered his belief that the guidelines
should be consistent with the law, and relayed that the issue of
notice provisions for caucus meetings has been discussed by the
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics and its subcommittee.
He, too, pointed out that caucuses are included in the
definition of "legislative body", and can consist of any people
grouped together for a common, philosophical purpose.
CHAIR McGUIRE mentioned that at a luncheon attended by female
legislators of both bodies, there had been discussion regarding
whether a women's caucus should be formed. Such a caucus would
meet monthly to discuss women's issues. The question arose
regarding what would be considered a women's issue: would it be
legislation that one or more members of the caucus felt was
important to women as a whole, would it be what it is like to
serve as a female legislator in somewhat of a minority role in
the legislature? She asked, "Is that considered, then, a
caucus, and would we, then, be subject to those rules?"
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied, "By your description, I would
say yes." He noted that the language on page 3, lines 16-17,
specifies that a gathering of members for ministerial or social
purposes can be closed only if there is no deliberations of
policy issues.
CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether holding a caucus meeting in a public
venue, such as a restaurant, would count as an open meeting.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that if there is, in fact, a
grouping of likeminded people forming a caucus, then by
definition, they would need to take care regarding their
conduct.
Number 1749
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked whether such a caucus could meet at
a member's house and talk about whether to [sponsor] legislation
pertaining to a women's issue.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG opined that the issue in question is
whether the meeting is open or closed, rather than where the
meeting takes place.
MR. ROBERTS posited that Representative Samuels's is questioning
whether such a group would fall under the definition of
legislative body as listed in subsection (g)(1)(A)(vi). If the
definition of caucus does not specify majority and minority
caucuses, "then it reaches into all the smaller caucuses," he
surmised.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA offered his belief that Representative
Rokeberg did a good job in defining what a legislative body is.
He suggested, however, that the provision regarding caucuses
should pertain only to majority and minority caucuses, not other
caucuses, because that is where public interest lies.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he absolutely objects to having
only the majority and minority caucuses qualify as a legislative
body; "if we're going ... to have a bright line or try to have a
rule that applies to caucuses, it should be applied to
everybody."
CHAIR McGUIRE asked how such a rule would be applied, for
example, if [hypothetically], without calling themselves a
women's caucus, she invites the female legislators of both
bodies to her house, serves dinner, and they discuss legislation
regarding contraception.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied: "I think in terms of the
application of open meetings principles, which is contained in
the bill and in the intent language within the statute, ... you
should not try to create a subterfuge around it." If a meeting
contains a discussion regarding political strategy, then the
group would have a right to exclude the public, and the
alternative would be to invite members of the public, perhaps
members of the fourth estate, to the aforementioned hypothetical
dinner.
Number 1888
REPRESENTATIVE GARA remarked:
It's circular to say, "That's a caucus" and "That's
not a caucus" if we're not going to define what a
caucus is. ... "I know it when I see it," isn't going
to work in this bill. So we have to make the
threshold decision [regarding] what it is we think the
public wants to see. We know they want to see what
the majority and the minority do and what committee's
do and what task [force's] do and what the House does
and what the Senate does. We know they want to see
that, and that would be a big improvement if we could
come up with laws on those subjects. Maybe they also
want to know what's happening at [the hypothetical]
dinner; I mean, I suppose there's a fair chance they
want to know that, but that's going to require a lot
more thought than we're going to engage in between now
and whatever time we gavel out of this committee.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that other states have already
dealt with this issue; in addition, there is case law,
legislative law, and the minutes pertaining to this bill and
similar legislation from past years. Therefore, there shouldn't
be any difficulty finding a solution.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA suggested, then, that there should be a
definition of what a caucus is.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that is a good point, and mentioned
that the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics' subcommittee
has taken up that issue, which has been a main point of
discussion. He suggested that any definition of what a caucus
is should be a generic definition, offering as an option, "an
affiliation of likeminded philosophies". He also suggested that
any forthcoming definition should not specify a particular
number of members; rather, referring to a majority or a quorum
of the members of a legislative body should be sufficient.
CHAIR McGUIRE said she'd like members to now focus debate on the
proposed amendments.
Number 2015
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to Amendment 1,
which read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 1, line 12, delete "and action, including voting,
is taken" and insert "and discusses pending
legislation."
Page 2, line 2, after "strategy" add "but no action,
including voting, may be taken."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that the first part of
Amendment 1 would change the bill such that subsection (b)
wouldn't require that action be taken, because that's too
restrictive, and that the second part of Amendment 1 would
provide that a meeting could be closed while discussing and
deliberating political strategy so long as no action, including
voting, is taken. He noted that during his prior service as a
legislator, during a time when he was a member of the majority,
"these were basically the rules" and they worked very well.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG observed, however, that the language in the
first part of Amendment 1 - "and discusses pending legislation"
- could also apply when a majority of legislators attend a
social function hosted by a lobbyist and pending legislation is
discussed.
CHAIR McGUIRE suggested that perhaps they could add language to
the effect that the primary purpose of the gathering would be
the discussion of pending legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG offered instead that perhaps it would be
more suitable to alter the first part of Amendment 1 such that
the language on page 1, lines 12-13, would say, "and action,
including voting, is taken or could be taken".
MR. ROBERTS relayed that the only concern he has with that
proposal is that it's still not clear what is meant by the terms
"action" and "voting". In other words, isn't voting something
that only occurs on the floor?
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked that voting also occurs in
caucus.
CHAIR McGUIRE suggested using the term "polling".
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG expressed disfavor with using that term.
Number 2147
CHAIR McGUIRE, remarking that Mr. Roberts has a good point,
surmised that the term "polling" could refer to requests for a
general showing of hands.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA suggested altering the first part of
Amendment 1 such that it ends the sentence on page 1 [line 11-
13] with the word "present". After that, they could contemplate
defining an open meeting such that a primary purpose of the
meeting is to discuss issues of legislation, potential
legislation, and the like. He went on to say, "I don't want to
work within the construct of working around and keeping the
words "action" and "voting", because, technically, you really
can't do those things in an informal meeting, so I think we just
need to get rid of those words and work a different definition."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG explained that in developing HB 563,
he'd tried to stay close to the Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics' previously proposed suggestions for guidelines. He
indicated that what he has proposed is also similar, with just
some modification, to Minnesota law. He suggested having the
first part of Amendment 1 alter page 1, line 12, to say, "and
action is taken or could be taken".
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would consider such a change
[to the first part of Amendment 1] to be a friendly amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG offered his belief that such a change
would just define what a meeting is under the open meetings
provisions.
Number 2239
REPRESENTATIVES GRUENBERG and ROKEBERG suggested that the two
parts of Amendment 1 be divided into Amendment 1a and Amendment
1b. [Although no formal motion was made, no objection was
stated, and Amendment 1 was treated as divided.]
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed a desire to have Amendment 1a
add the phrase, "or could be taken" after "taken" on page 1,
line 13. [Although no formal motion was made, no objection was
stated, and Amendment 1a was treated as amended to that effect.]
Number 2250
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 1a [as
amended]. There being no objection, Amendment 1a [as amended]
was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 1b
[text provided previously].
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested changing Amendment 1b such
that it alter page 2, lines 1-2, to read in part, "Legislators
may only meet in a closed caucus or in a private, informal
meeting to discuss and deliberate on political strategy." He
opined that this would make the language more consistent with
current statute.
MR. ROBERTS expressed acceptance of such a change.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether there are any other
reasons for allowing legislators to meet in a closed caucus.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG indicated that if there are any other
reasons, they could be addressed in the definition provision.
Number 2307
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed a desire to have Amendment 1b
altered such that it would add "only" after "may" on page 2,
line 1. [Although no formal motion was made, no objection was
stated, and Amendment 1b was treated as amended to that effect.]
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON surmised that [Amendment 1b, as amended]
would address Chair McGuire and Representative Samuels's
hypothetical gatherings.
TAPE 04-76, SIDE B
Number 2360
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG added that it would not prohibit
members from meeting socially; it would instead only address
political caucuses pertaining to political strategy. He
remarked, "That's traditionally the way the bodies have worked
around here; it's worked well, and I think that's a very
reasonable proposal."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG offered: "The current law ... says
guidelines must permit closed caucuses and private, informal
meetings or conversations between legislators in which political
strategy is discussed. ... What we're doing is basically
restating that, and we're clarifying what that means." He also
remarked, "If the women's caucus met in this building, you would
have to face the issue about whether or not it would be open or
closed, and the fact that you meet at your home or another
setting makes no difference legally."
REPRESENTATIVE OGG asked whether, if five members of the House
Judiciary Standing Committee met to play cards, that would be
allowed.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG opined that it would be allowed.
MR. ROBERTS offered his belief that such would be allowed
because of the language on page 3, lines 15-17, which reads in
part, "(2) 'meeting' does not include ... a gathering of members
of a legislative body for purely ministerial or social purposes
where there is no deliberation of policy issues".
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG argued, however, that legislators discuss
policy issues whenever they meet, regardless of whether it's
just a social gathering.
CHAIR McGUIRE agreed, and relayed that she would be offering an
amendment to address that issue.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA indicated agreement with Representative Ogg.
MR. ROBERTS, in response to questions from Representative Holm,
reiterated his affiliation, detailed his organization's tax
status and funding sources, and stated that his organization has
a political agenda but does not advocate for any political
parties.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether there was still an
objection to the adoption of Amendment 1b [as amended].
Number 2205
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON removed his objection.
Number 2200
CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether there were any further objections to
Amendment 1b [as amended]. There being no objection, Amendment
1b [as amended] was adopted.
Number 2191
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested amending the sentence on page
2, lines 1-2, to include, at the end of the sentence, language
along the lines of: ", but this provision does not prohibit the
discussion of pending issues and legislation, provided members
do not act to approve or disapprove the legislation".
CHAIR McGUIRE called the forgoing suggestion Amendment 1c.
Number 2119
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 1c.
Number 2114
REPRESENTATIVES GARA and ANDERSON objected.
MR. ROBERTS asked whether this additional language would apply
within the context of political strategy.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG indicated it would.
MR. ROBERTS said it seems as though Amendment 1c would define
political strategy such that it would allow discussion of
pending issues.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that appears to be the case, and
suggested that perhaps [Amendment 1b, as amended] isn't
necessary.
CHAIR McGUIRE concurred.
Number 2051
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew Amendment 1c.
Number 2042
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion that the committee
rescind its action in adopting Amendment 1b [as amended]. There
being no objection, it was so ordered.
CHAIR McGUIRE offered her belief that Amendment 1c is not
necessary now that Amendment 1b [as amended] is no longer part
of the bill.
Number 1991
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 2,
which read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 2, line 8, after "governor" add "discussions
about a bill among potential co-sponsors"
Number 1969
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS objected [for the purpose of discussion].
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG relayed that he'd offered Amendment 2
on behalf of Mr. Roberts.
MR. ROBERTS explained that Amendment 2 would have been
appropriate had the committee taken out the reference to voting
in subsection (b). He indicated that perhaps Amendment 2 is no
longer necessary, since Amendment 1a, as amended, did not remove
the reference to voting.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he is a little concerned about
Amendment 2, and remarked that it might apply in cases where a
bill's sponsor goes seeking co-sponsors for his/her bill.
MR. ROBERTS said Amendment 2 would provide another exception to
what would be considered an open meeting.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG offered his belief that Amendment 2
isn't necessary, remarking that the exception provision is not
intended to be a laundry list.
Number 1908
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew Amendment 2.
Number 1874
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 3,
which contained additional handwritten language and read
[original punctuation provided]:
Page 4, line 21, after "if" add "the committee finds
that"
page 4, line 21 delete "violates" and insert "has
violated"
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG indicated that he didn't have a problem
with Amendment 3.
Number 1847
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG again made a motion to adopt Amendment
3. There being no objection, Amendment 3 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG directed attention to Amendment 4, which read
[original punctuation provided]:
Page 1, line 13: After "voting, is" INSERT "or could
be"
Page 2, line 8: after "regard to" INSERT "political"
Page 2, line 9: after "context of" INSERT "political"
REPRESENTATIVE OGG said he wants to modify Amendment 4 such that
the first proposed change is stricken, since Amendment 1a, as
amended, has the same effect. [Although no formal motion was
made, no objection was stated, and Amendment 4 was treated as
amended to that effect.]
Number 1830
REPRESENTATIVE OGG made a motion to adopt Amendment 4 [as
amended]. There being no objection, Amendment 4 [as amended]
was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA directed attention to Amendment 5, a
handwritten amendment which read [original punctuation
provided]:
Insert at p. 2 line 10
"(d) a meeting under this section shall be open if a
primary purpose of the meeting is the discussion of
the merits of legislation, potential legislation or
changes to legislation."
Number 1825
[Although no formal motion was made, Amendment 5 was treated as
moved for adoption]
REPRESENTATIVE GARA indicated that he wants Amendment 5 to be
altered such that the text would be inserted at page 1, line 13,
after the sentence ending with "taken" and such that "(d) A" is
replaced with "a". [Although no formal motion was made, no
objection was stated, and Amendment 5 was treated as amended to
that effect.] He explained that Amendment 5 [as amended] would
fit into the provision that outlines what constitutes a meeting
that is subject to the open meetings guidelines, and would
stipulate that a meeting shall be open if the primary purpose is
the discussion of legislation, potential legislation, or changes
to legislation. He opined that Amendment 5 [as amended] would
address the hypothetical card game, dinner party, and other
social functions, while letting people know that most onsite
caucus meetings, wherein the primary purpose is the discussion
of legislation regardless of whether action or voting takes
place, must be open meetings.
Number 1768
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON objected to the adoption of Amendment 5
[as amended].
CHAIR McGUIRE suggested altering Amendment 5 [as amended] to
say, "A gathering where the primary purpose of the meeting is
the discussion of the merits of legislation, potential
legislation or changes to legislation.". She remarked that
currently, Amendment 5 [as amended] "kind of creates this weird
thing where you're saying "open" "closed" in a place where
you're just defining meeting."
REPRESENTATIVE GARA suggested, then, that perhaps they should
just revert to the original form of Amendment 5, which would add
a new subsection (d).
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON objected, and opined that discussion of
the merits of legislation should be permitted in a closed
caucus.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested that [Amendment 5 is
redundant] because of language in subsection (a), which reads in
part: A meeting of a legislative body is open to the public in
accordance with the open meetings guidelines established in this
section."
REPRESENTATIVE GARA argued, however, that although the bill
starts out saying that a meeting shall be open to the public, it
then goes on to list all the instances in which a meeting is
closed to the public.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted that the exceptions to an open
meeting are listed in subsection (c).
REPRESENTATIVE GARA remarked:
This is a threshold question of where we're going to
go with this bill. If the bill says that you can
discuss all the merits of legislation in a closed
caucus and keep it closed just because at the end of
the day you don't take a vote or a particular action,
then we're no further along than where we are today.
... The way the bill is written right now, my caucus
could meet, we could sit there and discuss all the
merits of legislation, demerits, argue back and forth,
and then at the end say, "Yeah, this is a good idea,"
"It's a terrible idea," "I oppose it," or ... "I think
I might support it." All of that is closed unless a
vote is take or action is taken. And I want an open
meetings law that says, when we have these substantive
discussions about policy, those are open. ... So the
way the bill is written right now, those won't be
open.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG concurred.
Number 1623
CHAIR McGUIRE suggested altering Amendment 5 [as amended] such
that it adds, on page 1, line 13, after the word "taken", the
phrase: "and a primary purpose of the meeting is the discussion
of [the] merits of legislation, potential legislation or changes
to [legislation]." She surmised that this would be adequate to
define "meeting", since the exceptions are listed on page 2.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA said:
That would work with only one little change/exception
though. This whole thing of, ... it's not an open
meeting unless action could potentially be taken, I
mean what action can ... really be taken in an
informal meeting? So if you can't really take any
action in an informal meeting of non-powerful
legislators, then you can essentially talk about
whatever you want ...
Number 1569
CHAIR McGUIRE interjected to suggest that they replace "and"
with "or" as the first word in her suggested change to Amendment
5 [as amended]. She relayed that subsection (b) would then read
in part:
For purposes of the legislative open meetings
guidelines, a meeting occurs when a majority of the
members of a legislative body is present and action[,
including voting,] is taken or could be taken, or the
primary purpose of the meeting is the discussion of
the merits of legislation, potential legislation [or]
changes [to legislation].
CHAIR McGUIRE posited that the foregoing adequately states what
a meeting is, and the list of exceptions details the
circumstances under which a meeting may be closed.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA agreed.
CHAIR McGUIRE remarked that a meeting is not something that only
occurs when action is taken. She restated how the first
sentence in subsection (b) would read if Amendment 5 [as
amended] is amended in that fashion and adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON opined that discussions regarding
legislation, potential legislation, and changes to legislation
should be allowed in closed meetings because such would qualify
as discussions of political strategy.
CHAIR McGUIRE said no, and reiterated that changing the bill as
she suggests will define what a meeting is, and that the
exceptions on page 2 list the circumstances under which a
meeting may be closed. She opined that Representative Gara is
correct in that a meeting consists of more than just taking
action or potentially taking action.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS said his only concern with Chair
McGuire's suggested change revolves around the term "potential
legislation", because "everything in this room is potential
legislation"; in other words, any topic that is discussed has
the potential to engender legislation.
Number 1414
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS suggested altering Chair McGuire's
proposed change by putting a period after the words, "merits of
legislation". He added, "The substance of the issue is what
we're trying to get at; [if we] talk about the substance of an
issue, [the] door needs to be open."
CHAIR McGUIRE offered her belief that changes to legislation
would be included under the term "legislation".
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS concurred.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA indicated that he would accept
Representative Samuels's suggestion as a friendly amendment to
Chair McGuire's proposed amended version of Amendment 5 [as
amended].
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out, however, that "it's not
just discussions of the merits of legislation; it could be
discussions of substantive policy issues."
REPRESENTATIVE GARA offered as an alternative the words,
"discussion of the merits of legislation, or issues within the
purview of the legislature".
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested not using the words, "merits
of legislation and issues within the purview ..."
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON interjected to state, "Throw in
football."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said, "It's a meeting of anything."
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS opined that using the term, "merits of
legislation" gets them where they really want to go.
Number 1336
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON suggested deleting "merits", and having
it read in part, "discussion of legislation".
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his belief that that would
work.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA indicated acceptance of Representative
Anderson's suggestion to delete "the merits of" as part of the
proposed changes to Amendment 5 [as amended].
CHAIR McGUIRE surmised, then, that the text of Amendment 5 [as
amended] would be altered to read:
[, or] the primary purpose of the meeting is the
discussion of legislation."
REPRESENTATIVE GARA indicated a willingness to move the
foregoing, but suggested that they end it with the words,
"legislation or state policy".
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that would be okay.
CHAIR McGUIRE expressed a preference for using the words,
"legislation or state policy".
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG clarified that with the adoption of
Amendment 1a [as amended], the language being proposed via an
amended version of Amendment 5 [as amended] would be inserted
after the second "taken".
[Although no formal motions were made, several of the foregoing
suggested changes to Amendment 5, as amended, were treated as
adopted such that the following became Amendment 5, as amended.]
Number 1221
REPRESENTATIVE GARA made a motion to adopt this amended version
of Amendment 5 [as amended]:
After the second "taken" at page 1, line 13, insert ",
or if a primary purpose of the meeting is the
discussion of legislation or state policy"
Number 1209
CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether there were any objections to
Amendment 5 [as amended]. There being none, Amendment 5 [as
amended] was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG turned attention to a proposed amendment
that read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 3, line 10, delete "(ii) any committee or group
of legislators and the governor or staff of the Office
of the Governor."
CHAIR McGUIRE and REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that that
proposed amendment was not offered.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented, "Well you should; it's
actually a good amendment."
CHAIR McGUIRE indicated a preference for allowing Representative
Gara to finish with his proposed amendments [first].
Number 1103
REPRESENTATIVE GARA made a motion to adopt Amendment 6, a
handwritten amendment which read [original punctuation
provided]:
At page 2 line 8, after "deliberations" add "and
discussions"
Delete remainder of sentence after "strategy".
CHAIR McGUIRE objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA opined that as currently written, lines 8-9
of page 2 are confusing. Amendment 6 would change lines 8-9 to
read in part, "deliberations and discussions with regard to
political strategy.". He posited that Amendment 6 would prevent
the possibility of adding "a little pepper or salt" of strategy
in the middle of a discussion on issues in order to avoid the
open meetings requirement.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he strongly objects to Amendment 6.
He noted that in the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics'
subcommittee, there was discussion with regard to the
distinction between deliberations and discussions of issues in
the context of political strategy. He said the intention of HB
563 is to allow those types of activities: deliberations with
regard to political strategy, and discussions of issues in the
context of political strategy. He elaborated, "You cannot talk
about the political strategy, if you will, without having the
proper context of the issues and the understanding of it; so ...
those discussions become intertwined, and I don't see how you
can have any kind of bright-line test will be ... usable."
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON indicated agreement.
Number 0941
REPRESENTATIVE GARA withdrew Amendment 6, but added, "I think
... we have to come up with a way that would prevent somebody
from cloaking what should be an open meeting with a little bit
of a discussion of strategy at the end of the meeting or in the
beginning of the meeting just to find a way to close it."
Number 0895
REPRESENTATIVE GARA made a motion to adopt Amendment 7, a
handwritten amendment which read [original punctuation
provided]:
At page 3 delete lines 12-13 and renumber
Number 0891
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA opined that the way the bill is currently
written:
Your meeting doesn't have to [be] open unless you're a
legislative body, and then it defines legislative body
to be commissions, committees, all that sort of stuff,
and then, starting at line 6 on page 3, we have
exclusions, and these are things that are not
legislative bodies and therefore are not subject to
the open meetings Act. And line 12 says, "officers of
the legislature" - well, that would be all of us. ...
Unless I'm interpreting it wrong, the way that's
written ... that just excludes all of us from the open
meetings Act.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON offered his belief, however, that the
phrase, "officers of the legislature" refers to majority
leaders, minority leaders, and the speaker of the House and
Senate president.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG agreed with Representative Anderson's
summation.
MR. ROBERTS asked whether the language on page 3, lines 12-13,
would allow all committee chairs to meet in the same room
without being considered a legislative body.
Number 0732
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG acknowledged that such could be the case
and therefore Representative Gara might have a point in that
regard. In response to a question, he said he thinks that a
closed meeting of leadership should be allowed. He suggested
that they could remove committee chairs from the exclusion if
the committee feels that would be too broad.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested changing page 3, lines 12-13,
such that the provision would reference only leadership
meetings.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA acknowledged that perhaps more work could be
done with that provision, but suggested that for the time being
they simply remove lines 12-13 from page 3.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he agrees with Representative
Gruenberg's suggestion.
CHAIR McGUIRE expressed a preference for addressing
Representative Gara's motion and remaining proposed amendments
first and then looking at new language.
Number 0683
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON removed his objection.
CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether there were any further objections to
Amendment 7. There being none, Amendment 7 was adopted.
Number 0669
REPRESENTATIVE GARA made a motion to adopt Amendment 8, a
handwritten amendment which read [original punctuation
provided]:
At page 3 line 4 insert "minority or majority" after
"a".
Number 0657
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA offered his belief that they need to define
caucus in order to determine which caucuses will be subject to
the open meetings Act. Many caucuses are informal, he
suggested, and so although more caucuses might be added to the
statute later, it should start out listing majority and minority
caucuses.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected. He said: "The question is,
do we want to have adjectives describing the caucuses, starting
with majority and minority? ... If we go down that road, then
we've got to get the health caucus, Bush caucus, women's caucus,
... Anchorage caucus, Children's caucus. I think we [should]
just leave it the way it [is]."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG agreed, adding that the open meetings
law, in its entirety, is designed to throw an umbrella over "all
of these meetings; you can't be renaming yourself as
subterfuge."
Number 0531
REPRESENTATIVE GARA withdrew Amendment 8.
Number 0483
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 9, to
add "(iii) legislative leadership meetings;" to page 3, after
line 11. There being no objection, Amendment 9 was adopted.
Number 0462
REPRESENTATIVE OGG [made a motion to adopt] Amendment 10: on
page 3, line 16, delete "purely", and on page 3, line 17, delete
"where there is no deliberation of policy issues". Amendment 10
would have the effect of changing page 3, lines 16-17, to read
in part: "(A) a gathering of members of a legislative body for
ministerial or social purposes;".
Number 0439
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for the purpose of discussion.
He asked whether the word "primarily" ought to be inserted
[after "body"].
REPRESENTATIVE OGG indicated that he would accept the forgoing
as an amendment to Amendment 10 as long as Representative
Rokeberg agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG indicated that such a change to
Amendment 10 is acceptable.
CHAIR McGUIRE stated that Amendment 10 has been amended; the
text being altered by Amendment 10, as amended, now reads in
part: "(A) a gathering of members of a legislative body
primarily for ministerial or social purposes;".
Number 0394
CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether there were any further objections to
Amendment 10, as amended. There being none, Amendment 10, as
amended, was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG - referring to the previously mentioned
proposed amendment that read, Page 3, line 10, delete "(ii) any
committee or group of legislators and the governor or staff of
the Office of the Governor." - notwithstanding his earlier
comment on this issue said, "Actually, I think we should keep
that because it means when we get together with the governor
it's not (indisc.) we don't have to go to political strategy; it
isn't redundant, I've realized.
MR. ROBERTS said his concern with the language that the
aforementioned amendment proposes to delete is that if those
described in sub-subparagraph (ii) do not constitute a
legislative body, then a meeting of such people would not be
covered by the open meetings guidelines at all. And if such a
meeting is not covered by the guidelines, then all this talk
about voting or deliberations doesn't matter, he opined, and
added, "if you have a majority or minority caucus and you invite
somebody in from the governor's office, it's no longer a
legislative body and you can vote on bills."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG remarked, "We're not voting on anything
in front of the governor."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said, "The reason I didn't offer this
[proposed amendment] is because, for forever, from what my
knowledge is, groups of legislators, including sometimes
caucuses, have meetings with the governor, whether it's upstairs
or in his house, and those are not open, and I really did not
want to get into that."
MR. ROBERTS responded: "That is exempted in [the definition of]
'political strategy' on page 2, lines 7 and 8. It says meetings
with the governor are 'political strategy'. So ... under that,
the meeting would be allowed to be closed but you couldn't vote
on ..."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG interjected to say, "But that's only
with the leaders, and this is broader."
Number 0252
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said: "That is correct. Representative
Gruenberg has got it now, and I'd earlier thought it was
redundant but it really isn't, because one speaks more
specifically to an exception for political strategy, and the
other really is more general membership meeting with the
governor."
CHAIR McGUIRE concurred with Representative Rokeberg's statement
that there would be no voting in a meeting with the governor.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG, on a different topic, said that
Representative Gara brings up a good point in that although the
bill refers to "caucus", there is no definition in it of what a
caucus is. He directed attention to [Conceptual] Amendment 11,
which would create a definition section or become part of an
existing subsection and would add the words, "For the purposes
of these guidelines, 'caucus' means a group of legislators who
share a political philosophy and who organize as a group with a
common goal.".
CHAIR McGUIRE indicated that she did not like that language,
remarked that it did not accurately define any caucus she has
been a member of, and suggested that alternative language could
be offered on the House floor.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG mentioned that the language [in
Conceptual Amendment 11] has been well researched and comes out
of case law.
TAPE 04-77, SIDE A
Number 0001
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested amending [Conceptual]
Amendment 11 such that "and" is replaced with "or"; the language
in [Conceptual] Amendment 11 would then read, "For the purposes
of these guidelines, 'caucus' means a group of legislators who
share a political philosophy or who organize as a group with a
common goal.".
CHAIR McGUIRE indicated a preference for having it be "or"
rather than "and".
[Although no formal motion was made until later in the meeting,
Amendment 11 was treated as amended to that effect.]
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG indicated a preference for considering
[Conceptual] Amendment 11 [as amended] on the House floor.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG mentioned that he would prefer to
address this issue before the bill goes to the House floor.
Number 0079
REPRESENTATIVE OGG made a motion to adopt [Conceptual] Amendment
11 [as amended].
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he thinks that the language in
[Conceptual] Amendment 11 [as amended] is too narrow and
wouldn't apply to a health caucus or a women's caucus.
SEVERAL MEMBERS posited, however, that the phrase "who organize
as a group with a common goal" would apply to such caucuses.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA asked whether two legislators working on the
same bill would be considered a caucus under the language
proposed via [Conceptual] Amendment 11 [as amended], for
example, when he and Chair McGuire worked together on the bill
pertaining to strip clubs.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said no, because [Conceptual] Amendment
11 [as amended] refers to "a group".
Number 0175
CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether there were any objections to
[Conceptual] Amendment 11 [as amended].
REPRESENTATIVE GARA surmised that under one portion of language
in [Conceptual] Amendment 11 [as amended], a caucus has to be a
group of people who organize.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG agreed.
MR. ROBERTS, making use of the word "or", read a portion of
[Conceptual] Amendment 11 [as amended].
Number 0193
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion, then, to amend
[Conceptual] Amendment 11, to replace "and" with "or". There
being no objection, [Conceptual] Amendment 11 was [still treated
as] amended.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON opined that [Conceptual] Amendment 11
[as amended] could apply to either the majority caucus or the
Anchorage caucus.
Number 0232
CHAIR McGUIRE again asked whether there were any objections to
[Conceptual] Amendment 11, as amended. There being none,
Conceptual Amendment 11, as amended, was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE GARA, in conclusion, said he didn't know where he
stood with regard to the amended version of HB 563, and
suggested that it would be good to have someone review the
forthcoming committee substitute (CS).
CHAIR McGUIRE suggested that the House Rules Standing Committee
could do so.
Number 0315
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON moved to report HB 563, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying zero fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHB
563(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing
Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 0351
The House Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was recessed at
10:30 p.m., to be continued at 3:00 p.m. on May 6, 2004.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|