Legislature(1995 - 1996)

03/20/1996 01:10 PM JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
               HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE                              
                         March 20, 1996                                        
                           1:10 p.m.                                           
 MEMBERS PRESENT                                                               
 Representative Brian Porter, Chairman                                         
 Representative Joe Green, Vice Chairman                                       
 Representative Con Bunde                                                      
 Representative Bettye Davis                                                   
 Representative Al Vezey                                                       
 Representative Cynthia Toohey                                                 
 Representative David Finkelstein                                              
 MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                
 COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                            
 HOUSE BILL 339                                                                
 "An Act relating to the termination of parental rights of                     
 incarcerated parents."                                                        
      - CSHB 339(JUD) MOVED FROM COMMITTEE                                     
 HOUSE BILL 387                                                                
 "An Act rearranging existing provisions of AS 47.10 into chapters             
 separately addressing the topics of children in need of aid,                  
 delinquent minors and the institutions, facilities, and management,           
 administration, and oversight of programs relating to minors, and             
 conforming references and making other conforming changes due to              
 that rearrangement; amending the manner of determining support                
 obligations for children in need of aid and delinquent minors;                
 amending the purpose of delinquency provisions; amending hearing              
 procedures used in delinquency proceedings; amending provisions               
 relating to enforcement of a restitution order entered against a              
 minor; setting out the considerations to be given by a court in               
 making its dispositional orders for minors adjudicated delinquent;            
 authorizing municipalities to establish curfews for minors by                 
 ordinance; relating to enforcement of truancy under the compulsory            
 school attendance law; and amending Rule 23(d), Alaska Delinquency            
      - CSHB 387 (JUD) MOVED FROM COMMITTEE                                    
 HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 51                                                     
 "Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska            
 relating to limited entry for sport fish guides and allied                    
      - HJR 51 MOVED FROM COMMITTEE                                            
 HOUSE BILL 368                                                                
 "An Act relating to election campaigns, election campaign                     
 financing, the oversight and regulation of election campaigns by              
 the Alaska Public Offices Commission, the activities of lobbyists             
 that relate to election campaigns, and the definitions of offenses            
 of campaign misconduct; and providing for an effective date."                 
      - HEARD AND HELD                                                         
 HOUSE BILL 443                                                                
 "An Act relating to the tax on transfers or consumption of motor              
 fuel, and repealing the exemption from that tax for motor fuel                
 which is at least 10 percent alcohol by volume; and providing for             
 an effective date."                                                           
      - SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                                
 PREVIOUS ACTION                                                             
 BILL:  HB 339                                                               
 SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) ROKEBERG,Mulder,Robinson,B.Davis                
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG             ACTION                                        
 05/08/95      1976    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 05/08/95      1976    (H)   HES, STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY                     
 01/23/96              (H)   HES AT  3:00 PM CAPITOL 106                       
 01/23/96              (H)   MINUTE(HES)                                       
 01/24/96      2528    (H)   COSPONSOR(S):  MULDER                             
 01/30/96      2573    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): ROBINSON                            
 02/15/96              (H)   HES AT  3:00 PM CAPITOL 106                       
 02/15/96              (H)   MINUTE(HES)                                       
 02/19/96      2800    (H)   HES RPT  CS(HES) NT 3DP 3NR                       
 02/19/96      2801    (H)   DP: ROKEBERG, TOOHEY, ROBINSON                    
 02/19/96      2801    (H)   NR: G.DAVIS, BUNDE, BRICE                         
 02/19/96      2801    (H)   ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DHSS)                           
 02/22/96              (H)   STA AT  8:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 02/22/96              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                       
 02/23/96      2867    (H)   STA RPT  CS(HES) NT 3DP 1NR                       
 02/23/96      2868    (H)   DP: JAMES, PORTER, WILLIS                         
 02/23/96      2868    (H)   NR: IVAN                                          
 02/23/96      2868    (H)   ZERO FISCAL NOTE (LAW)                            
 02/23/96      2868    (H)   ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DHSS) 2/19/96                   
 03/06/96              (H)   JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 03/06/96              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 03/20/96              (H)   JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 BILL:  HB 387                                                               
 SHORT TITLE: JUVENILE CODE REVISION                                           
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG             ACTION                                        
 01/05/96      2367    (H)   PREFILE RELEASED                                  
 01/08/96      2367    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 01/08/96      2368    (H)   HES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE                           
 01/19/96      2483    (H)   SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED-REFERRALS           
 01/24/96      2528    (H)   COSPONSOR(S):  ROKEBERG                           
 01/26/96      2548    (H)   COSPONSOR(S):  KOHRING                            
 01/30/96              (H)   HES AT  3:00 PM CAPITOL 106                       
 01/30/96              (H)   MINUTE(HES)                                       
 02/22/96              (H)   HES AT  3:00 PM CAPITOL 106                       
 02/22/96              (H)   MINUTE(HES)                                       
 02/29/96              (H)   HES AT  3:00 PM CAPITOL 106                       
 02/29/96              (H)   MINUTE(HES)                                       
 03/08/96      3021    (H)   HES RPT  CS(HES) NT 1DP 4NR                       
 03/08/96      3022    (H)   DP: ROKEBERG                                      
 03/08/96      3022    (H)   NR: G.DAVIS, BUNDE, ROBINSON, BRICE               
 03/08/96      3022    (H)   INDETERMINATE FISCAL NOTE (DPS)                   
 03/08/96      3022    (H)   2 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (COR, DHSS)                   
 03/08/96      3022    (H)   REFERRED TO JUDICIARY                             
 03/20/96              (H)   JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 BILL:  HJR 51                                                               
 SHORT TITLE: SPORT FISHING GUIDE LIMITED ENTRY                                
 SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) GREEN                                           
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG             ACTION                                        
 12/29/95      2358    (H)   PREFILE RELEASED                                  
 01/08/96      2358    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 01/08/96      2358    (H)   STATE AFFAIRS, FSH, JUDICIARY                     
 02/13/96              (H)   STA AT  8:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 02/13/96              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                       
 02/17/96              (H)   STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 02/17/96              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                       
 02/20/96              (H)   STA AT  8:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 02/20/96              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                       
 02/21/96      2822    (H)   STA RPT  2DP 4NR 1AM                              
 02/21/96      2822    (H)   DP: GREEN, OGAN                                   
 02/21/96      2822    (H)   NR: JAMES, IVAN, ROBINSON, WILLIS                 
 02/21/96      2822    (H)   AM: PORTER                                        
 02/21/96      2822    (H)   FISCAL NOTE (GOV)                                 
 02/21/96      2822    (H)   ZERO FISCAL NOTE (LAW)                            
 02/28/96              (H)   FSH AT  5:00 PM CAPITOL 124                       
 02/28/96              (H)   MINUTE(FSH)                                       
 02/29/96      2960    (H)   FSH RPT  CS(FSH) 3DP 2NR                          
 02/29/96      2960    (H)   DP: OGAN, G.DAVIS, AUSTERMAN                      
 02/29/96      2960    (H)   NR: ELTON, MOSES                                  
 02/29/96      2960    (H)   FISCAL NOTE (GOV) 2/21/96                         
 02/29/96      2960    (H)   ZERO FISCAL NOTE (LAW) 2/21/96                    
 03/20/96              (H)   JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 BILL:  HB 368                                                         
 SHORT TITLE: ELECTION CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM                                 
 SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) JAMES                                           
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG             ACTION                                        
 12/29/95      2362    (H)   PREFILE RELEASED                                  
 01/08/96      2362    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 01/08/96      2362    (H)   STA, JUDICIARY, FINANCE                           
 01/25/96              (H)   STA AT  8:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 01/25/96              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                       
 01/30/96              (H)   STA AT  8:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 01/30/96              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                       
 02/01/96              (H)   STA AT  8:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 02/01/96              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                       
 02/29/96              (H)   STA AT  8:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 02/29/96              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                       
 03/05/96              (H)   STA AT  8:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 03/05/96              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                       
 03/09/96              (H)   STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 03/09/96              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                       
 03/12/96      3087    (H)   STA RPT  CS(STA) NT 2DP 3NR                       
 03/12/96      3088    (H)   DP: JAMES, PORTER                                 
 03/12/96      3088    (H)   NR: GREEN, IVAN, ROBINSON                         
 03/12/96      3088    (H)   FISCAL NOTE (ADM)                                 
 03/20/96              (H)   JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 BILL:  HB 443                                                               
 SHORT TITLE: INCREASE MOTOR FUEL TAX                                          
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG             ACTION                                        
 01/22/96      2508    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 01/22/96      2508    (H)   STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY, FINANCE                 
 03/12/96              (H)   STA AT  8:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 03/12/96              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                       
 03/12/96              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                       
 03/14/96              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                       
 03/18/96      3175    (H)   STA RPT  CS(STA) 2DP 3NR                          
 03/18/96      3175    (H)   DP: JAMES, PORTER                                 
 03/18/96      3175    (H)   NR: OGAN, ROBINSON, WILLIS                        
 03/18/96      3176    (H)   FISCAL NOTE (DOT)                                 
 03/18/96      3176    (H)   REFERRED TO JUDICIARY                             
 03/20/96              (H)   JUD AT  1:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 WITNESS REGISTER                                                              
 REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG                                                
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 State Capitol, Room 110                                                       
 Juneau, Alaska  99801-1182                                                    
 Telephone:  (907) 465-4968                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified as sponsor on HB 339                           
 LIZ DODD, Esq.                                                                
 American Civil Liberties Union, Alaska Chapter                                
 100 Parks Street                                                              
 Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                         
 Telephone:  (907) 463-2601                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 339                                      
 REPRESENTATIVE PETE KELLY                                                     
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 State Capitol, Room 513                                                       
 Juneau, Alaska  99801-1182                                                    
 Telephone:  (907) 465-2327                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified as sponsor on HB 387                           
 L. DIANE WORLEY, Director                                                     
 Division of Family & Youth Services                                           
 Department of Health & Social Services                                        
 P.O. Box 110630                                                               
 Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                         
 Telephone:  (907) 465-3191                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 387                                      
 ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General                                    
 Department of Law                                                             
 P.O. Box 110300                                                               
 Juneau, Alaska  99811-0300                                                    
 Telephone:  (907) 465-3191                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 387                                      
 REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPH GREEN                                                   
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 State Capitol, Room 24                                                        
 Juneau, Alaska  99801-1182                                                    
 Telephone:  (907) 465-4931                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HJR 51                                      
 GARY HULL                                                                     
 P.O. Box 1964                                                                 
 Soldotna, Alaska  99669                                                       
 Telephone:  (907) 262-5601                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HJR 51                                      
 JAMES FITZGERALD                                                              
 Kings Sportfish                                                               
 34794 Poppywood                                                               
 Soldotna, Alaska  99669                                                       
 Telephone:  (907) 262-6368                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HJR 51                                      
 DAN PRUITT                                                                    
 Meier's Lake                                                                  
 P.O. Box 142                                                                  
 Gakona, Alaska 99586                                                          
 Telephone:  (907) 822-3968                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HJR 51                                      
 BILL LEONARD                                                                  
 P.O. Box 336                                                                  
 Gakona, Alaska  99586                                                         
 (907) 822-3664                                                                
 Telephone:  (907) 822-3664                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HJR 51                                      
 JOHN WITTEVEEN                                                                
 4844 Rezanof Drive                                                            
 Kodiak, Alaska  99615                                                         
 Telephone:  (907) 486-6307                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:   Testified on HJR 51                                     
 L. ALAN LEMASTER                                                              
 P.O. Box 222                                                                  
 Gakona, Alaska  99588                                                         
 Telephone:  (907) 822-3664                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HJR 51                                      
 JOE HAGER                                                                     
 P.O. Box 11                                                                   
 Soldotna, Alaska  99669                                                       
 Telephone:  (907) 262-1575                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HJR 51                                      
 ACTION NARRATIVE                                                              
 MEL ERICKSON, Vice President                                                  
 Kenai River Guides                                                            
 P.O. Box 1127                                                                 
 Soldotna, Alaska                                                              
 Telephone:  (907) 262-2980                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HJR 51                                      
 DAVE JONES                                                                    
 Address Unavailable                                                           
 Telephone:  (907) 486-6360                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HJR 51                                      
 DONALD WESTLUND                                                               
 Box 7883                                                                      
 Ketchikan, Alaska  99901                                                      
 Telephone:  (907) 225-9319                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HJR 51                                      
 ANDREW SZCZESNY                                                               
 (Address unavailable)                                                         
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HJR 51                                      
 JOE HAINES                                                                    
 (Address unavailable)                                                         
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HJR 51                                      
 RUEBEN HANKE                                                                  
 (Address unavailable)                                                         
 Telephone:  (907) 283-4618                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HJR 51                                      
 JEFF LOGAN, Legislative Assistant to Representative Green                     
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 State Capitol, Room 24                                                        
 Juneau, Alaska  99801-1182                                                    
 Telephone:  (907) 465-4931                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HJR 51                                      
 JACK CHENOWETH, Attorney                                                      
 Legislative Legal Counsel                                                     
 Legislative Legal and Research Services                                       
 130 Seward Street, Suite 409                                                  
 Juneau, Alaska  99801-2105                                                    
 Telephone:  (907) 465-2450                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 368                                      
 TAPE 96-38, SIDE A                                                            
 Number 000                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN BRIAN PORTER called the House Judiciary committee meeting            
 to order at 1:10 p.m.  Members present at the call to order were              
 Representatives Green, Bunde, Toohey and Vezey.  Representative               
 Finkelstein arrived at 1:11 p.m. and Representative Davis arrived             
 at 1:15 p.m.                                                                  
 HB 339 - PRISON & TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS                            
 CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that there were five bills before the                   
 committee for consideration as follows:  HB 339, HB 387, HJR 51, HB
 368 and HB 443, the latter of which would not be heard.  He                   
 summarized concerns regarding HB 339 and the proposed changes to              
 this legislation.  There were two provisions in this legislation,             
 the first sought to provide specifics which the state and the                 
 courts could consider for the termination of parental rights, the             
 fact that the parent was incarcerated.  The second provision dealt            
 with changing the entire scope of determining whether or not                  
 parental rights should be terminated and the language which                   
 addressed this more specifically "willing and able," by adding the            
 word able.  This second section was completely deleted from the               
 committee substitute.  The legislation before the committee merely            
 purports to do what the original intent was and that is to consider           
 incarceration of a parent when assessing parental rights.                     
 Number 222                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG stated that this was a fair                    
 characterization of where the legislation stood and he complimented           
 the Chairman for his concise description.  He than asked for the              
 committee's consideration and support of CSHB 339 version (R).                
 Representative Rokeberg also added that the deleted portion as                
 noted would be considered separately.                                         
 Number 311                                                                    
 LIZ DODD, Esq., American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Alaska                 
 Chapter testified on CSHB 339 version (R).  She referred to page 5            
 of the Public Defender's memorandum which proposed that three                 
 paragraphs from a prior version of the legislation be included in             
 the present version (R) in order to narrow the scope of determining           
 parental rights.  The ACLU felt that the period of incarceration              
 imposed should include a significant portion of the child's                   
 minority.  The present bill is very broad on this note and allows             
 for a lot of discretion.  By putting this section in it would                 
 narrow this intent to minority children and accomplish the stated             
 MS. DODD continued by stating that the section the ACLU would like            
 put back in this legislation is the clause that the parent has to             
 have failed to make adequate provisions for the care of the child             
 during the period of incarceration.  She felt as though the parent            
 should have this right.  Ms. Dodd noted that if this bill does get            
 passed the ACLU would like an additional paragraph drafted by the             
 Public Defender's Agency which would allow a judge some discretion            
 to retain some residual parental rights to the parent when the                
 termination takes place, such as visitation, for example.                     
 MS. DODD noted some general concerns about the bill.  She wondered            
 about the applicability of it in terms of a person incarcerated in            
 Lemon Creek and their child is in the custody of a grandparent.  If           
 the grandmother dies, can parental rights be lost under this                  
 scenario in this ex post facto way.  Once this legislation goes               
 into effect will someone already incarcerated come under the                  
 jurisdiction of this legislation.                                             
 MS. DODD also wondered if this legislation would have an impact on            
 sentencing.  It's such a severe act to have a child taken away, how           
 would judges interact with this.  Would they be less willing to               
 impose a stricter sentence under these circumstances.                         
 Number 627                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPH GREEN inquired as to whether or not Ms. Dodd            
 was suggesting in section 3 of the Public Defender's memorandum               
 about a child's minority if parental rights were terminated would             
 this be applicable from the time the person is incarcerated and               
 their child is ten years old, for example.  Would the incarceration           
 from the time the bill be passed mean that this termination would             
 be in effect until this child becomes an adult, or would the ten              
 years of the child's prior life before this bill was passed be                
 included.  He asked what they were talking about in regards to                
 defining a child's life.  Would this include from the time the                
 child was born or from the time this bill goes into effect or for             
 the time this person is incarcerated.                                         
 MS. DODD said she assumed it would be the significant term of the             
 child's life and their remaining minority.  At least the language             
 which she proposed would narrow this time period considerably.                
 Number 785                                                                    
 DIRK NELSON, American Civil Liberties Union, testified by                     
 teleconference from Valdez regarding CSHB 339 version (R).  Mr.               
 Nelson echoed Ms. Dodd's concerns and said the Division of Youth              
 and Family Services (DYFS) on the surface was a good concept, but             
 individual social workers and attorney generals cannot be trusted             
 with this type of authority and power.  He cited the history as to            
 why incarceration has not been considered before when terminating             
 parental rights, the concept of double jeopardy for one.                      
 MR. NELSON summarized by stating that he didn't think this bill was           
 constitutional and he doesn't believe that the relationship between           
 a child and parent should be brought to an end by a third party               
 because of an incarceration.                                                  
 Number 973                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA TOOHEY made a motion to adopt CSHB 339                 
 version (R) as the committee's working draft.  There being no                 
 objection the motion so passed.                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE noted the suggestion that language should            
 be added to specify more clearly the terms of a child's minority              
 when considering the termination of parental rights.                          
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG offered that the definition by law of a               
 child is a minor and a minor is a child.                                      
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated that it should be taken into account              
 how much longer a child is going to be a minor, how large a portion           
 of a child's minority the incarceration would include.                        
 Number 1080                                                                   
 CHAIRMAN PORTER spoke to the notion of including language to                  
 reflect this concept.  He was concerned about this concept because            
 it would require that there be a substantial sentence applied                 
 before a termination would be considered.  It would eliminate the             
 ability of the court to consider frequent short sentences which               
 cause these same types of problems in a child's life.  Especially             
 due to alcohol, people cycle in and out of jail houses for years.             
 These types of cycles can cause considerable problems.  Chairman              
 Porter also addressed one of the other issues raised by Ms. Dodd              
 about a judge not wanting to institute a sufficient sentence based            
 on a minority child's future, he thought that one way around this             
 would be to not include this type of provision so that no matter              
 what the sentence is, termination of parental rights should be                
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that he agreed with this perspective           
 and added that trying to establish some sort of mathematical                  
 equation or another standard would take away any discretion a judge           
 could have.                                                                   
 Number 1170                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN offered an amendment number 1 to             
 CSHB 339 version (R) which read as follows:                                   
 "(A) If parental rights are terminated under this section due to              
 incarceration, the court shall also make a specific finding                   
 concerning what residual parental rights are in the best interests            
 of the child and should be retained by the parent whose rights are            
 He stated that this amendment would require that a specific finding           
 be included on any residual parental rights.  It doesn't say what             
 those would be and all options would remain available.                        
 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that he opposed the amendment                  
 because this was precisely why he introduced the bill.                        
 Number 1300                                                                   
 CHAIRMAN PORTER requested a roll call vote.  Representatives                  
 Finkelstein and Davis voted yes.  Representatives Green, Bunde,               
 Toohey, Vezey and Porter voted no.  The amendment number 1 failed.            
 Number 1285                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY commended Representative Rokeberg for                 
 working on this legislation.  It was a difficult issue and he was             
 presently torn on this bill and was not certain how he would vote             
 if it was brought to the floor.                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY stated she too commended this legislation.              
 Some of her colleges felt as though this bill benefited older                 
 children, but she felt as though it's stated purpose was for                  
 infants.  She felt this legislation was important for a child in              
 need.   Representative Toohey then made a motion to move CSHB 339             
 version (R) from the House Judiciary Committee with individual                
 recommendations and a zero fiscal note.  There being no objection             
 it was so moved.                                                              
 HB 387 - JUVENILE CODE REVISION                                             
 Number 1400                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE PETE KELLY came forward to testify as sponsor to HB
 387.  He stated that this legislation probably seemed more                    
 complicated than it really was just due to it's length.  HB 387               
 does not address issues of confidentiality or serious felony                  
 crimes.  It does not increase penalties for entry level crimes and            
 it no longer addresses entry level criminal activity as it did in             
 it's original form.                                                           
 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY stated that what this legislation does do is             
 it splits the juvenile code into two parts effectively and into a             
 residual third part.  One side of the code deals with how the state           
 will handle delinquent children, how it will deal with children in            
 need of aid and then those portions of statute which apply to both            
 for the department's purposes.  The child in need of aid statutes             
 are currently found in AS 47.10.00 which exists much the same as it           
 has in the past.  This legislation creates a new chapter 12 which             
 will deal with delinquent children and chapter 14 would be the                
 portion of the statute which deals with both.                                 
 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY noted that in the past one of the difficulties           
 in addressing juvenile crime is the "child in need of aid" and                
 juvenile delinquents were mixed in statute.  It was difficult for             
 the courts and the department to adequately carry out their goals             
 of helping children and dealing with juvenile crime.  To split the            
 code, Representative Kelly essentially listed AS 47.10, the "child            
 in need of aid" section and then removed all the portions which               
 dealt with delinquency, placed it in AS 47.12 and then rewrote the            
 delinquent section with some policy changes.  There are few policy            
 changes in this bill.                                                         
 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY stated that the original, cumbersome language            
 regarding truancy was stripped from the existing code and the new             
 language essentially provides for the local school district to deal           
 with truancy.  This legislation also has a section dealing with               
 curfew.  It does not establish a statewide curfew, but puts the               
 ability to establish a curfew in title 29.                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY offered that as part of the policy changes he            
 referred to with splitting the code, he thought it was appropriate            
 that new language be drafted to define what a delinquent was.  This           
 gives the department policy direction on how they will deal with              
 delinquent crime.  He referenced page 23 and 34 as encompassing               
 these noted sections.  Representative Kelly quoted text regarding             
 the purpose of the chapter as follows:                                        
 "The protection of the public and reformation of the offender.  To            
 provide for the most common offenses committed by minors,                     
 resolution should require some form of sanction, that the sanction            
 should be certain, swift and may take the form of a reasonable                
 claim on the time and talent of the minor who has committed the               
 offense;  To provide that counseling provided to the minor should             
 include the minors's family or guardian, that the minor's family or           
 guardian has the right to offer suggestions and to make                       
 recommendations for the correction of the minor's behavior and that           
 the minor's family or guardian maybe asked to participate in the              
 supervision of the minor's treatment."                                        
 He stated that this may sound very obvious, but it is simply not in           
 code right now how they will deal with juvenile delinquents.                  
 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY stated that current law makes very brief                 
 mention of how the courts will deal in sentencing juvenile                    
 delinquents, "it shall consider the best interests of the child and           
 the public."  This was probably appropriate language when juvenile            
 delinquents and children in need of aid were lumped together, but             
 having made this split it was necessary to provide language which             
 better gives the courts direction.  On page 34, line 4, he quoted             
 this language as written in the present form of HB 387.                       
 Representative Kelly stated that this legislation was a great                 
 working tool and for the established Youth Conference.  He felt as            
 though it gave a tool to all the juvenile legislation which has               
 been formulated in the present legislative body and a tool to                 
 accommodate these other provisions.                                           
 Number 1815                                                                   
 L. DIANE WORLEY, Director, Division of Family & Youth Services,               
 Department of Health & Social Services testified that the                     
 department does support this bill.  For the record, she stated that           
 they'd like to extend their appreciation to Representative Kelly              
 and Bruce Campbell for all their hard work.  The department felt as           
 though this legislation would assist them as they move forward in             
 the potential rewrite of the juvenile code.                                   
 Number 1973                                                                   
 ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law,                
 testified that she just received the new committee substitute                 
 yesterday and was only able to get half-way through it.  She stated           
 that this legislation represented a lot of work.  The idea of                 
 splitting Title 47 into two parts is a good idea, although it's               
 very hard to do.  Ms. Carpeneti noted that there are sections which           
 still need to be fixed and gave the committee examples of these               
 problems.  It was determined that the majority of these were                  
 technical in nature.  She offered that the more substantive changes           
 suggested were supported by the Department of Law.                            
 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Ms. Carpeneti if these existing concerns                
 could be put in an amendment which could be brought to the floor,             
 especially if they were technical in nature.  He suggested she                
 review the legislation further and if she came up with substantive            
 problems she could work it out with the sponsor.  It was decided              
 that she would review the remaining sections of this legislation              
 and work to make any additional changes to be presented on the                
 TAPE 96-38, SIDE B                                                            
 Number 087                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to move CSHB 387 version (W)               
 from the House Judiciary Committee with individual recommendations            
 and attached fiscal notes as not amended.  There being no objection           
 it was so moved.                                                              
 HJR 51 - SPORT FISHING GUIDE LIMITED ENTRY                                  
 Number 130                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN presented the House Joint Resolution 51 which            
 provides for a clarification regarding the mixed signals from the             
 court that says the state is not restricted from limiting the entry           
 of a fishery. The language as is now enumerated in state statute              
 covers sport fish guiding, as well as, commercial guiding.  It has            
 been rendered that commercial guides can be limited and there is              
 some legal opinion which says that this applies to sport fishing as           
 well.  Others say that this won't stand muster and that some                  
 clarification must be outlined.  This resolution adds the                     
 description that sport fish guiding as a profession is one that the           
 state is not restricted from limiting on a limited entry basis.               
 Number 202                                                                    
 GARY HULL testified by teleconference from Kenai.  He stated that             
 he was in favor of HJR 51 and noted a real need for limited entry             
 on the amount of guides, especially in certain areas such as the              
 Kenai.  He noted that there are probably areas which don't need               
 regulation at this time.  Mr. Hull urged this resolution be placed            
 on the ballot.                                                                
 Number 246                                                                    
 JAMES FITZGERALD testified by teleconference from Kenai.  He stated           
 that he wasn't a guide, but his wife was.  They both agree that               
 something should be done with the guide situation, especially on              
 the Kenai in July.  The only thing they do ask is that if a number            
 of guides is set, to do so by attrition, rather than on an                    
 arbitrary basis.  This way it would be fair to the people who are             
 guiding now.                                                                  
 Number 285                                                                    
 DAN PRUITT, testified from Meier's Lake by teleconference.                    
 (Testimony inaudible.)                                                        
 Number 340                                                                    
 BILL LEONARD testified by teleconference from Gakona.   He asked              
 who and how will it be determined the amount of guides on which               
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN noted that this would be instituted by the               
 Department of Fish & Game.  Based on the resource and the number of           
 guides available this would be done on a basis (inaudible -                   
 coughing) commercial fishing too.                                             
 Number 365                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said that it was his interpretation that                 
 before this program could implemented there would have to be a                
 statute passed and the department would probably have to implement            
 CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that what would happen after the                       
 constitution was amended is a statute would have to be written that           
 would either merely give Fish & Game the authority to write                   
 regulations to determine how, where and when, or the statute could            
 try to get into some policy making in this area depending on the              
 will of the legislature at that time.                                         
 JOHN WITTEVEEN testified by teleconference from Kodiak.  He stated            
 that he owned a lodge on Kodiak and with this business he  runs a             
 charter boat operation.  The allocation problem continues to                  
 persist with the Kenai River and it's related areas, as well as,              
 places in Southeast Alaska for charter boat operators and fishing             
 guides.  He said he would hate to see a limitation on the number of           
 guiding operations, whether charter or river fishing implemented              
 all over the entire state for a problem which perhaps exists in               
 isolated areas.  If indeed the concern is resource management, he             
 felt as though Fish  & Game has the option now if the resource is             
 threatened to either close seasons or limit catches in order to               
 conserve this resource.                                                       
 MR. WITTEVEEN noted that he employs a sixteen year old helper who             
 presently has a sport fishing guide license.  He is very good at              
 what he does and Mr. Witteveen imagines that this helper will want            
 to get into this field on a more permanent basis, yet the classic             
 limited entry system in place for salmon such as for commercial               
 would limit his ability to participate.  He noted that the sport              
 fishing business is not a lucrative profession.  He felt that                 
 certain areas in Alaska, Kodiak particularly where the other                  
 commercial fisheries are on a decline or limited on a certain                 
 basis, people are looking for other opportunities, such as eco-               
 touring or guiding kayaks or bear viewing, etc.  He didn't see how            
 sport fish guiding could be singled out on a blanket, statewide               
 basis just because of problems in some areas of the state.                    
 Number 570                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY stated that she was around when limited entry           
 was instituted to the crabbing industry statewide in the 60's.  She           
 felt then and now that this was a very "un-American" attitude to              
 limit something that is free for everybody.  She felt as though               
 this was private enterprise that they were stepping on.  She used             
 the analogy of a dress shop and limiting one in a town where there            
 are already too many dress shops.  She stated that this was the               
 whole purpose of free enterprize.  Somebody is going to loose their           
 shirt because there are too many guides on a river.  This is the              
 way it's suppose to work.  She said she could just see what will              
 happen.  If the constitution is changed and this fishery becomes              
 worth millions of dollars.  She stated that we have screwed up the            
 fishing industry so badly in this state now.  This is not the                 
 government's job, to limit businesses.                                        
 Number 636                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN spoke to one portion of Representative                   
 Toohey's comments.  He noted that this legislation was not about              
 limiting free enterprize.  This was to protect the fisheries                  
 resource.  If this legislation passes, Fish & Game would then,                
 based on the ability to maintain the resource, implement the same             
 type of program as for commercial fishing.                                    
 CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that he saw a difference between the                   
 regulation of commercial fishing and this legislation.  "What an              
 analogy would be, would be, some guide to go show a commercial                
 fisherman where to fish because he has the ability to go fish                 
 because he's either got a permit or will be fishing within the                
 limits of the area.  Same thing with a sports fisherman.  They have           
 to get a license and they have to abide by the regulations of how             
 many they take, and all that kind of stuff.  This is a new 'cat,'             
 this is a guide for that.  So I don't see this as a resource                  
 protection.  Maybe I'm missing something."                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a point that if guides are any good they            
 are going to know how to extract the resource far better than the             
 average fisherman.  As these proliferate the resource is adversely            
 affected.  This is why the committee has heard from problem areas.            
 There are certain fisheries where this regulation is definitely               
 Number 762                                                                    
 L. ALAN LEMASTER testified by teleconference from Gakona.  By                 
 limiting the number of guides on a river, the amount of people                
 fishing with these guides will be limited.  However, the people who           
 are not fishing with guides are not limited in any way.  On an                
 average day on the Gakona River there are many times where there              
 are more people fishing without guides than ones with guides.                 
 These guideless fisherman do catch as many fish as those with.  He            
 didn't think that limiting the number of guides will limit the                
 pressure on the fish, but will change the way people fish.                    
 MR. LEMASTER said he had a problem with the next step of the                  
 process if this legislation were to pass.  In order to implement              
 this policy a statute would spell out the regulations or this right           
 would be given to the Department of Fish & Game.   Mr. Lemaster is            
 in the lodge business and as a result he deals directly on several            
 levels with the Department of Environmental Conservation.  A few              
 years ago this department was given the jurisdiction over user                
 fees.  During those hearings he only heard of maybe two witnesses             
 in support of user fees.  Virtually everyone testified against this           
 concept, but because it was a regulatory issue, now they have user            
 fees coming out of their ears.                                                
 MR. LEMASTER said he supports the concept of regulating guides                
 because eventually this profession will have to be limited if                 
 anyone is going to make any money.  However, if it is determined by           
 the people of the state that they want limited entry he strongly              
 suggested that the rules for this program should be spelled out               
 very specifically by the legislature.  "I can't fire anybody who              
 works for Fish & Game, but I can sure help fire the guys that work            
 for the legislature if they pass rules that are detrimental to my             
 business."  The regulatory agencies go 'nuts' when given                      
 regulations to implement.                                                     
 Number 991                                                                    
 JOE HAGER testified by teleconference from Kenai.  He stated that             
 he'd been a guide on the Kenai River since 1978.  At that time                
 there were 38 guides on the river.  The parks took over the system            
 in 1985.  At that time they registered 183 guides.  As of last year           
 there were 314 guides that registered to fish on the Kenai River.             
 He felt as though other guides around the state will eventually see           
 the influx to their businesses as well.  Mr. Hager felt as though             
 they were going to have to cap this off because it's getting too              
 congested on the river and it's not a good business.                          
 Number 1066                                                                   
 MEL ERICKSON, Vice-President, Kenai River Guides Association and              
 Member, Deep Creek Fishing Charter Boat Association testified by              
 teleconference from Kenai.  He stated that he had guided in both              
 these areas for about eight years.  Mr. Erickson stated his support           
 for HJR 51.  This regulatory system for sport fish doesn't                    
 necessarily have to take place in the whole state, but maybe in               
 just those areas which need the program presently.  He said he had            
 just returned from the Board of Fish meetings in Anchorage.  The              
 board just put more restrictions on guides in the Deep Creek area             
 because of the increase in angler catches there.  The escapement              
 there is being affected.                                                      
 MR. ERICKSON stated that the Fish Board had asked guides during               
 public testimony about ways to limit the amount of people who fish            
 the Kenai since they have no authority to limit guides.  He felt              
 that if some limitations were not made soon that the Parks                    
 Department would do so maybe through a lottery or competitive bid,            
 which would be much worse than some sort of limited entry proposed            
 by HJR 51.  He felt as though it would be a good idea to propose an           
 amendment to this resolution which would state that limitation                
 could not be implemented without a specific plan approved by the              
 legislature.  Mr. Erickson also suggested an amendment that would             
 call for a moratorium that would cap at the 1995 level of guides              
 since it will a few years before this program can be implemented.             
 Number 1276                                                                   
 DAVE JONES testified by teleconference from Kodiak.  He stated that           
 he owned a lodge on Kodiak Island.  He said that he was not                   
 necessarily opposed to HJR 51, but he had a lot of concerns about             
 it and noted that it might be appropriate in hot spots around the             
 state.  Mr. Jones said that this measure was not necessary in his             
 area.  In regards to how this legislation will be implemented he              
 had a lot of reservations about this juncture.                                
 Number 1347                                                                   
 DONALD WESTLUND testified by teleconference from Ketchikan.  He               
 stated that he had one question.  He asked if the concept of                  
 limited entry would follow the limited entry language as it is                
 written right now for commercial fishing.                                     
 CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that this language was written now and they            
 would not be able to guess what a new legislature would want to               
 create as policy.                                                             
 MR. WESTLUND said that if this legislation passes it will create              
 management problems.  The only way that they can implement this               
 limited entry is to admit that their policies towards the sport               
 catch is problematic from a resource management perspective.                  
 Number 1570                                                                   
 ANDREW SZCZESNY testified by teleconference from Kenai.  He stated            
 that he's been a guide on the Kenai River for 12 years.  Every time           
 there is a concern about overcrowding, the guides seem to take the            
 blame for this.  He noted that if there isn't a cap placed on the             
 number of guides now the resource won't be able to recover.  At               
 this time he has a special use permit on the upper Kenai River                
 which is regulated by the federal government.  He is one of 20                
 people who have this permit up there.  The problem with this system           
 is the influx who use this section of the river which is getting              
 out of control, but if asked what the problem is, the government              
 says there are too many guides on the river.  The lower 48 has had            
 problems with a number of rivers there and they've had to implement           
 restrictions.  It's time Alaska recognizes a need for these                   
 restrictions on the Kenai.                                                    
 Number 1682                                                                   
 JOE HAINES, President, Kenai River Guide Association testified by             
 teleconference from Kenai.  He made a plea to the other guides                
 listening around the state that this effort would be a tool used by           
 local advisory people or the guide associations in an immediate               
 area, although it has to be implemented on a statewide basis.  He             
 used the example of the commercial fishery limited entry and it not           
 being applied to those areas which don't need it.  Secondly, he               
 stated that he'd just come back from the Board of Fish meeting and            
 said it was unbelievable the general consensus that this program              
 should be established, but nobody could understand why it wasn't              
 happening.  In response to Representative Toohey's comments, he               
 felt they were extremely short sighted.  He fully supports HJR 51.            
 Number 1847                                                                   
 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Mr. Haines if he thought that limited entry             
 for a sport fishing guide was the same as for a commercial                    
 MR. HAINES answered that limited entry was a stepping stone.  He              
 noted that guided anglers catch 70 percent of the salmon on the               
 Kenai, although they only make up a quarter of the boats which are            
 guide boats.  He felt as though there would be a time that a non-             
 resident would be limited to certain days they can fish.  He said             
 that he didn't mind taking the first step as a guide association to           
 set some of these limits.                                                     
 Number 1970                                                                   
 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if the Department of Fish & Game limit the              
 catch of sport fishing, whether it's guided or not.                           
 MR. HAINES pointed out that sport fishing is not limited due to               
 allocation, but that a minimum escapement is required.  The guides            
 get blamed for all the regulations generated because people need a            
 guide to figure them all out.  Fish & Game has the latitude, but              
 information can't be gathered until fish reports come back the                
 following year.  There are many streams where salmon counts aren't            
 done.  He noted the increase in the number of guides just in the              
 past year and not only are the resource suffering, but the quality            
 of experience is lacking.                                                     
 Number 2099                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN added that the Fish & Game does limit the                
 amount of escapement, but sometimes they miss as noted by closures            
 of all the fish types in an area.  Limiting commercial fishing                
 doesn't solve the entire problem.                                             
 TAPE 96-39, SIDE A                                                            
 MR. HAINES responded to a question posed by Representative Toohey,            
 a question which is not reflected in the minutes because of a tape            
 change.  He stated that the Kenai River was the first river to go             
 to a two fish bag limit.  This spread out to the other streams in             
 the Kenai system.  Mr. Haines said that it was his opinion that               
 this policy should be instituted throughout Cook Inlet.  He noted             
 that five kings was pretty liberal, instead of transferring this              
 fishing effort and waiting till there are resource problems.  He              
 cited some of the rivers in the lower 48 and the limits instituted            
 there.  Mr. Haines stated that in order to preserve resources                 
 Alaska will have to limit the existing popular fishing areas.                 
 Number 222                                                                    
 RUEBEN HANKE testified by teleconference from Kenai.  He said he              
 was in favor of this resolution.  He said it was hard to follow               
 through on end river restrictions when the number of sport                    
 fisherman are too great.  The guides are all trying to make a                 
 living and when a stream closes because of escapement problems,               
 this is hard one everyone.  He said it's also hard to tell clients            
 on a "trip of their lifetime" that they have to release their fish            
 under a catch and release policy.  Mr. Hanke felt as though this              
 resolution would create more continuity to the field.                         
 Number 360                                                                    
 MR. LEMASTER from Gakona said he had a few more things to add.  He            
 stated that rules which apply to one area don't always apply to               
 another.  He questioned the basic purpose of this bill, was it is             
 to limit the number of guides for the benefit of the guides or is             
 it to limit the catch on the river so it won't be placed in                   
 jeopardy.  If it is the latter, he felt as though some credence               
 should be given to the fact that guides take a limited amount of              
 fish out of the river.  He noted the numbers quoted for the guide             
 take on the Kenai at 70 percent and stated that there are other               
 areas where this may be reversed.  Mr. Lemaster added that                    
 basically they just need to limit the amount of people on a river.            
 Number 520                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE spoke to the issue of limited entry and how              
 the value of permits for commercial fishing has skyrocketed.  He              
 said he was in favor of limited entry for sport fishing as long as            
 the state held title to these permits and they would be given back            
 to the state once a guide finishes with a permit so that a dynasty            
 won't be created.  He also spoke to a grandfathering program to               
 allow present guides into the system.                                         
 Number 719                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that they have established this as a                
 three step process, first this issue would go on the ballot to see            
 if the people want to amend the constitution by subsequent                    
 regulation.  For the record, he had concerns about this manner of             
 limitation.  He had concerns on a much broader scope about state              
 permits and licenses becoming a valuable commodity.  At some point            
 this should be stopped.                                                       
 Number 788                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN felt as though the system of limited               
 entry is the only thing they are left with as an alternative in the           
 face of limited resources.  He used the example of Denali National            
 Park and the fact that he's come to accept this as part of this               
 experience, that it is under a limited entry program.  It's the               
 nature of high interest areas and Alaska needs this tool.                     
 Number 850                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated that the fiscal note consisted of                 
 $2,200 as a one time shot for getting this limited entry issue on             
 the ballot.  The amount associated with this issue as a                       
 constitutional amendment should be done as a matter of course                 
 rather than as a special appropriation.  He recommended adopting a            
 zero fiscal note.                                                             
 Number 941                                                                    
 JEFF LOGAN, Legislative Assistant to Representative Green responded           
 to a question posed by Representative Toohey to define what a                 
 "closely allied profession" was in regards to this legislation.  He           
 stated that this term was included in the legislation to cover                
 skippers who were not guides who run a boat, people who bait hooks            
 for clients, deck hands and others who assist in the guiding                  
 profession who are not guides.                                                
 Number 1050                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a motion to zero out the attached fiscal            
 note provided by the Division of Elections as to the cost of the              
 constitutional amendment.  There was an objection.  A roll call               
 vote was taken.  Representative Green voted yes.  Representatives             
 Bunde, Toohey, Vezey, Finkelstein and Porter voted no.  The                   
 proposed motion failed.                                                       
 Number 1118                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to move HJR 51 from the House              
 Judiciary Committee with individual recommendations and attached              
 fiscal note.  Representative Toohey objected.  A roll call vote was           
 taken.  Representatives Bunde, Vezey, Finkelstein, Green and Porter           
 voted yes.  Representative Toohey voted no.  The motion passed.               
 HB 368 - ELECTION CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM                                   
 Number 1158                                                                   
 CHAIRMAN PORTER introduced Jack Chenoweth to make a presentation              
 regarding HB 368.  Mr. Chenoweth came forward.                                
 Number 1165                                                                   
 JACK CHENOWETH, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative              
 Legal and Research Services, presented an overview on how HB 368              
 was drafted in it's present form.  Representative James had asked             
 at the outset that they prepare a bill based upon the initiative              
 that was then in circulation and which was subsequently certified             
 for the November general election ballot.  This they did.  The                
 drafting differed from the initiative, but basically covered the              
 same points.  In a hearing before House State Affairs, the                    
 principal sponsor of the initiative, Mr. Mike Frank from Anchorage,           
 indicated on the record that he thought that the bill as originally           
 introduced was in fact virtually the same as the initiative.  From            
 this point there was a work committee formed composed of                      
 Representative James, Finkelstein and Senator Tim Kelly who met on            
 a few occasions.  Using materials provided in significant part by             
 Representative Finkelstein, these consisted of about 30 changes to            
 the original bill as introduced.                                              
 MR. CHENOWETH stated that this work committee made about 30 changes           
 to the original bill and this was the bulk of the differences                 
 between the original bill as introduced, the initiative, and the              
 bill as being reported from the State Affairs Committee.  The                 
 following sets out the changes undertaken by the committee as                 
 MR. CHENOWETH said that the initiative included an indexing                   
 requirement which said that at periodic intervals the dollar figure           
 set in the initiative would be adjusted to reflect changes in the             
 cost of living.  This was taken out of the bill and no longer                 
 appears here.  The legal services division read the initiative to             
 require a registration before making contributions.  In point of              
 fact, the committee opted to eliminate any requirement of                     
 registration before individuals could make contributions.  The bill           
 reflects this portion of the initiative.                                      
 MR. CHENOWETH noted that the initiative proposed to reduce cash               
 contributions from $100 in current law to $25.  The committee and             
 hence, the State Affairs version took this back to current law                
 restoring the reference to $100.  The initiative came down rather             
 prohibitively on the acceptance of payment to and acceptance of               
 honoraria by people who are candidates after they have become                 
 candidates.  The work committee took this back more in the                    
 direction of current law, allowing some compensation for the giving           
 of personal services and payment, as well as, receipt of honoraria            
 by persons who are candidates.                                                
 MR. CHENOWETH offered that the initiative set an 11 month period              
 preceding a general election as the period of time in which                   
 candidates could go out and fund raise.  The work committee                   
 substituted for the principle races, statewide and legislative,               
 fixed dates for statewide elections.  For the governor and                    
 lieutenant governor, the initial dates these folks may begin to               
 raise funds is January 1 of the general election year of which they           
 are to be elected or re-elected.  For legislators it is June 1 of             
 the general election year in which the legislative seat is                    
 contested, for all others, which is the state's special elections             
 and municipal elections, the five month window period was left in             
 place.  The result of this was to change the window period, but it            
 leaves in place the concept as set out in the original initiative,            
 which is that money raised is in the election year only.  Money               
 cannot be raised in off years.                                                
 MR. CHENOWETH stated that the initiative allowed family members to            
 make loans to candidates.  The work committee disallowed this and             
 the language authorizing loans by family members came out of the              
 bill.  A technical amendment was made which eliminated a provision            
 in current law which required that when contributions in excess of            
 $250 be disclosed that a copy of the report filed with the Alaska             
 Public Offices Commission (APOC) must also be sent to the candidate           
 receiving the contribution.  The work committee conformed the                 
 definition of prohibitive contributions as a drafting matter.  The            
 committee was interested in the authorized uses of surplus uses of            
 campaign funds.  He recalled an initiative which allowed for five             
 or six ways these funds could be used.  The work committee adds to            
 this disposition in three ways: money can be returned to                      
 contributors on a pro rata basis; some of the surplus money can be            
 carried forward to be set aside for a subsequent legislative race             
 or campaign; and a certain amount may be put in a legislative                 
 office account and to be used as a supplement to a current                    
 legislative office allowance.                                                 
 MR. CHENOWETH noted that the penalty provisions were modified.  The           
 initiative used a sliding scale of civil penalty which drew from              
 criminal law concepts of criminal culpability and noted notions of            
 aggravating and mitigating factors.  The work committee abandoned             
 this approach, went back to something which approximates the                  
 current civil penalty arrangement, does allow aggravation in                  
 limited situations, but generally the approach taken in the State             
 Affairs version comes closer to what is more familiar with in                 
 current law.                                                                  
 MR. CHENOWETH said the initiative drew a definition of political              
 party out of AS 15.60.00, the election code, and brought it forward           
 into the campaign financing provisions.  The question arose from a            
 minor party about whether they would be treated as a political                
 party for purposes of receiving the higher amounts that political             
 parties could receive as contributions and expenditures.  He was              
 asked to go back and reform the definition so that the definition             
 of political party so that this minor political party would clearly           
 qualify as a party and not be restricted to the status of a group.            
 He noted that in this definition of political party if they ever              
 got three percent of the vote in a gubernatorial election across              
 any one of the last five gubernatorial elections, they would                  
 continue to quality as a political party for purposes of this act.            
 MR. CHENOWETH added that the criminal penalties in the initiative             
 have been stepped up so that matters which were intentional                   
 violations could be treated and prosecuted as C felonies.  The                
 committee was of the opinion that these penalties should be stepped           
 down by one step.  The most serious penalties in the State Affairs            
 version are A misdemeanors for intentional violations, B                      
 misdemeanors for knowing violations, and violations for that                  
 category of offense which is punishable by the payment of a fine              
 for reckless or criminally negligent violations.                              
 MR. CHENOWETH stated that current laws says that expenditures in              
 excess of $250 made at the close of a campaign have to be reported            
 within a nine or ten day window period.  No one reports                       
 expenditures, they report the contributions.  This bill makes the             
 change to delete the reference to expenditures, but contributions             
 would have to be reported.  The statement by contributor                      
 requirement was revised to limit it to individuals.  The "paid for            
 by" requirement was modified in two places based upon a U.S.                  
 supreme court decision about a year ago which carved out an                   
 exception for the "paid for by" requirement for independent                   
 campaign related expenditures that had to do with propositions or             
 questions.  Small amounts which cumulatively did not exceed $250 a            
 year were exempted from the "paid for by" requirement in the State            
 Affairs Committee version.  The initiative drew the term "publicly            
 funded entity" in without supplying a definition.  He was asked to            
 provide one and he did so.                                                    
 MR. CHENOWETH outlined that the State Affairs version picked up on            
 a request that the definition of a control group has to have in               
 it's name, the name of the individual candidate for or against whom           
 this control group is working, now says that the group has to have            
 50 percent or more of it's expenditures directed towards this end.            
 They made an amendment in the State Affairs version that drops this           
 down to thirty three and a third percent.  He was told that the               
 Public Office of Commission would like to see this taken back to              
 current law.  As this legislation came from State Affairs, this               
 change is in there.                                                           
 MR. CHENOWETH said that they have tried to work through and include           
 in the State Affairs version a definition or statement of the                 
 relationship between a political party and subordinate units,                 
 groups such as district parties and group which come in and ask to            
 be affiliated with the main political parties.  They had a                    
 discussion on two occasions in the work committee and brought this            
 type of statement into the bill.                                              
 MR. CHENOWETH noted that as mentioned earlier, the disclaimer                 
 provision has been amended to reflect the decision of the U.S.                
 Supreme Court in the MacIntyre decision.  The effective date from           
 the initiative has changed so that the entire bill would become               
 effective January 1, 1997.  There is in the bill, but not in the              
 original initiative a provision which bars the use of charitable              
 gaming proceeds to support political activities under Section 2 of            
 this bill.  The original initiative barred use of money from out-             
 of-state sources.  This bill allows it within strict limits so that           
 there can be limited acceptance of money from non-residence in                
 statewide, state Senate, and state House races.  The maximum amount           
 that a political party may contribute to a candidate is increased             
 over the amount set in the initiative.  The amount that a group can           
 contribute to a candidate which was a $1000 dollars in current form           
 was reduced in the initiative and was taken back to $1000 dollars             
 in the State Affairs version.  Groups are not permitted in the                
 initiative to give to other groups.  The State Affairs version                
 lifts this prohibition to allow groups to make these contributions            
 to other groups to a maximum of a $1000.  After some discussion,              
 the bill incorporated a provision that limits the governor and                
 lieutenant governor from raising election campaign funds during the           
 legislative session.  They have in place something which says that            
 they may raise money while the session in progress.                           
 MR. CHENOWETH noted that they overhauled the litigation provision.            
 The initiative allowed that the taxpayer who wanted to challenge a            
 candidate could go to one of two forums, the Alaska Public Offices            
 Commission or to court.  They revised this to eliminate the                   
 automatic chance of going to court unless the APOC is first                   
 addressed in the form of a complaint and given 60 days to work                
 through the situation and to come to some preliminary step.  If               
 they don't get this far within the 60 days, only then can someone             
 go to court.  The object of this was to prevent last minute filings           
 in court which gain a lot of publicity, but would still not cut off           
 the right of access if the APOC drags it's feet.                              
 MR. CHENOWETH offered that current laws states that if someone says           
 at the outset that they are going to run and not raise or expend              
 more than $1000 they don't have to worry about disclosure.  The               
 committee has recommended that this amount be raised to $2500.  A             
 severability provision which appeared in the initiative, but which            
 they took out in the initial drafting because the general                     
 severability clause that attaches presumably to all bills under               
 Title 1, Senator Kelly asked that it be put back in this bill as it           
 appears.  In addition, in the current draft a clause was enumerated           
 that says that this bill and the initiative cannot both take                  
 effect.  The idea being, that if the lieutenant governor says that            
 the bill and initiative are substantially the same, the initiative            
 does not go on the ballot and hence this bill becomes law.  If the            
 lieutenant governor says that this bill and the initiative are not            
 substantially the same, the initiative alone goes before the                  
 voters.  This does not become law.  The idea is that if one is                
 dropped one on top of the other, there will be quite a mess to sort           
 out for 1997.                                                                 
 Number 2000                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN adjourned the meeting at 3:02 p.m.                          

Document Name Date/Time Subjects