Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/17/1999 01:12 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 17, 1999
1:12 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Pete Kott, Chairman
Representative Joe Green
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Lisa Murkowski
Representative Eric Croft
Representative Beth Kerttula
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 57
"An Act relating to immunity for certain claims against the state,
a municipality, or agents, officers, or employees of either,
arising out of or in connection with the year 2000 date change; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 57(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 3
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to initiatives regarding natural resources belonging to
the state.
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 7
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to initiative and referendum petitions.
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 25
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to a petition for an initiative or referendum regarding
fish or wildlife.
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 103
"An Act relating to civil actions by municipalities and certain
public corporations and prohibiting certain civil actions by them
against firearms or ammunition manufacturers and dealers."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 57
SHORT TITLE: STATE & MUNI IMMUNITY FOR Y2K
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/22/99 64 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
1/22/99 64 (H) CRA, JUDICIARY
1/22/99 64 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (ADM)
1/22/99 64 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
2/04/99 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
2/04/99 (H) MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
2/04/99 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
2/05/99 142 (H) CRA RPT 5DP 1NR
2/05/99 142 (H) DP: DYSON, MORGAN, HARRIS, MURKOWSKI,
2/05/99 142 (H) HALCRO; NR: KOOKESH
2/05/99 142 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (ADM) 1/22/99
2/05/99 142 (H) REFERRED TO JUDICIARY
3/15/99 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
3/15/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD
3/15/99 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
3/17/99 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HJR 3
SHORT TITLE: CONST. AM: WILDLIFE INITIATIVES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) BUNDE
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/19/99 16 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/99
1/19/99 16 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
1/19/99 16 (H) RESOURCES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
1/27/99 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
1/27/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD
1/27/99 (H) MINUTE(RES)
2/01/99 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
2/01/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD
2/01/99 (H) MINUTE(RES)
2/05/99 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
2/05/99 (H) MINUTE(RES)
3/03/99 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
3/03/99 (H) MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
3/03/99 (H) MINUTE(RES)
3/05/99 357 (H) RES RPT 2DP 2NR 1AM
3/05/99 357 (H) DP: MORGAN, HARRIS; NR: KAPSNER,
MASEK;
3/05/99 357 (H) AM: OGAN
3/05/99 357 (H) FISCAL NOTE (GOV)
3/05/99 358 (H) REFERRED TO JUD
3/17/99 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HJR 7
SHORT TITLE: CONST AM: INITIATIVE/REFERENDUM PETITIONS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) WILLIAMS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/19/99 17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
1/19/99 17 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
2/11/99 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
2/11/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD
2/11/99 (H) MINUTE(STA)
2/18/99 (H) MINUTE(STA)
2/19/99 (H) STA AT 3:30 PM CAPITOL 102
2/19/99 (H) MINUTE(STA)
2/23/99 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
2/23/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD
2/23/99 (H) MINUTE(STA)
2/25/99 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
2/25/99 (H) MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
2/25/99 (H) MINUTE(STA)
2/26/99 318 (H) STA RPT COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE(STA)
3DP 2DNP 1AM
2/26/99 318 (H) DP: JAMES, WHITAKER, HUDSON;
2/26/99 318 (H) DNP: SMALLEY, KERTTULA; AM: OGAN
2/26/99 318 (H) FISCAL NOTE (GOV)
2/26/99 318 (H) REFERRED TO JUD
3/05/99 377 (H) COSPONSOR(S): DAVIES
3/12/99 444 (H) COSPONSOR REMOVED: DAVIES
3/17/99 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HJR 25
SHORT TITLE: CONST. AM: FISH & WILDLIFE INITIATIVES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) OGAN
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
3/08/99 389 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
3/08/99 390 (H) RES, JUD, FINANCE
3/15/99 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
3/15/99 (H) MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
3/15/99 (H) MINUTE(RES)
3/16/99 467 (H) RES RPT 5DP 3NR
3/16/99 467 (H) DP: OGAN, WHITAKER, HARRIS, BARNES,
3/16/99 467 (H) MASEK; NR: SANDERS, KAPSNER, MORGAN
3/16/99 467 (H) FISCAL NOTE (GOV)
3/16/99 467 (H) REFERRED TO JUD
3/17/99 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 103
SHORT TITLE: LIABILITY RELATING TO FIREARMS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) DYSON, Austerman
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
2/19/99 260 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
2/19/99 260 (H) CRA, JUDICIARY
2/24/99 308 (H) COSPONSOR(S): AUSTERMAN
3/09/99 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
3/16/99 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
3/16/99 (H) MOVED CSHB 103(CRA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
3/16/99 471 (H) CRA RPT COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE(CRA) NT
5DP 2NR
3/16/99 471 (H) DP: DYSON, HALCRO, HARRIS, MORGAN,
3/16/99 471 (H) MURKOWSKI; NR: JOULE, KOOKESH
3/16/99 471 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (CRA)
3/16/99 471 (H) REFERRED TO JUDICIARY
3/17/99 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
GAIL VOIGTLANDER, Assistant Attorney General
Special Litigation Section
Civil Division
Department of Law
1031 West 4th Avenue, Suite 200
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-1994
Telephone: (907) 269-5100
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 57.
MICHAEL GATTI, Attorney
Matanuska-Susitna Borough; and
Member, Alaska Municipal League
350 East Dahlia
Palmer, Alaska 99645
Telephone: (907) 745-9679
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 57.
CORY WINCHELL, Administrative Assistant
to Representative Pete Kott
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 118
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3777
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a cross-analysis of HJR 3, HJR 7, and
HJR 25.
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 501
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4843
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HJR 3.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 502
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3424
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HJR 7.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 128
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3878
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HJR 25.
DAVID G. KELLEYHOUSE, Representative
Alaska Outdoor Council
P.O. Box 81452
Fairbanks, ALASKA 99708
Telephone: (907) 455-7882
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CSHJR 25(JUD).
LAURA SKAER, Executive Director
North West Mining Association
Address not provided
Telephone: (509) 624-1158
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 3.
HOLLY CARROLL
1085 Coppet Street
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Telephone: (907) 474-0213
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HJR 3, HJR 7, and
HJR 25.
JIM LEVINE
Box 1075
Homer, Alaska 99603
Telephone: (907) 235-4190
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HJR 3, HJR 7, and
HJR 25.
BOB GREEN, President
Alaska Frontier Trappers Association
951 Bunker Hill
Wasilla, Alaska 99654
Telephone: (907) 376-2621
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 25.
DOUG YATES, Representative
Alaskans For Common Ground
P.O. Box 221
Ester, Alaska 99725
Telephone: (907) 479-8300
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HJR 3, HJR 7, and
HJR 25.
MIKE YOURKOWSKI
3059 Kachemak Drive
Homer, Alaska 99603
Telephone: (907) 235-2628
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HJR 3, HJR 7, and
HJR 25.
MICHELE KECK (PH)
Address not provided
Telephone: (Not provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 3, HJR 7, and HJR 25.
DICK BISHOP
1555 Guss's Grind
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Telephone: (907) 455-6151
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CSHJR 25(JUD).
ROD ARNO, President
Alaska Outdoor Council
P.O. Box 2790
Palmer, Alaska 99645
Telephone: (907) 376-2913
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CSHJR 25(JUD).
MICHELLE WILSON (PH)
(Address not provided)
Telephone: (Not provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HJR 3, HJR 7, and
HJR 25.
ERIC HOLLAND
P.O. Box 73751
Fairbanks, Alaska 99707
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HJR 3; and concern
with HJR 7 and HJR 25.
KENNY BARBER
Box 7330
Palmer, Alaska 99645
Telephone: (907) 745-4446
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HJR 25.
KATIE KURELLO (PH)
Address not provided
Telephone: (Not provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HJR 3, HJR 7, and
HJR 25.
BYRON HALEY, President
Chitina Dipnetters Association
1002 Pioneer Road
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Telephone: (907) 456-4426
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CSHJR 25(JUD).
DICK BURLEY, Representative
Interior Wildlife Association
1165 Coppet Street
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Telephone: (907) 474-0188
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CSHJR 25(JUD).
JOEL BENNETT, Co-sponsor
Wolf Management Reform Coalition (Proposition 3)
15255 Point Louisa Road
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 789-1718
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 3, HJR 7, and HJR 25.
GAIL FENUMIAI, Election Program Specialist
Division of Elections
Central Office
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
P.O. Box 110017
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0017
Telephone: (907) 465-4611
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on the initiative process on behalf
of division.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 99-13, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN PETE KOTT called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:12 p.m. Members present at the call to order
were Representatives Kott, Green, Rokeberg, James, Murkowski, and
Kerttula. Representative Croft arrived at 1:15 p.m.
HB 57 - STATE & MUNI IMMUNITY FOR Y2K
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the first order of business is HB 57, "An
Act relating to immunity for certain claims against the state, a
municipality, or agents, officers, or employees of either, arising
out of or in connection with the year 2000 date change; and
providing for an effective date."
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced there are a series of amendments.
Number 0273
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 2. It
reads as follows:
Page 3:
Delete lines 11-16
Insert: (1) "electronic computing device" includes any
computer hardware or software, a computer chip, an
embedded chip, process control equipment, or other
information system that is used to capture, store,
manipulate, or process data;
Page 3:
Delete lines 20-23
Insert: (3) "year 2000 date change" includes processing
date or time data from, into and between calendar year
1999 and calendar year 2000, and leap year calculations;
in this paragraph, "processing" includes calculating
comparing, sequencing, displaying and storing.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to remove the first Page 3
paragraph relating to electronic computing devices.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated the nature of the amendment is to
clarify the definition of a "year 2000 date change". There is
confusion among the public about what day it is - January 1, 2000
or January 1, 2001.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Representative Rokeberg whether he
really feels that there is a problem.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied there is confusion. There is an
18-month period, according to conventional wisdom, starting July 1,
1999 through the entire next year when the millennium problems will
arise. The amendment clarifies that the year 2000 date change is
January 1, 2000, not January 1, 2001.
Number 0548
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN removed his objection. There being no further
objection, Amendment 2, as amended, was so adopted.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Gail Voigtlander from the Department of Law
whether she has any objection to Amendment 2, as amended.
GAIL VOIGTLANDER, Assistant Attorney General, Special Litigation
Section, Civil Division, Department of Law, testified via
teleconference from Anchorage. She doesn't have the amendment in
front of her, but it sounds like it is just a clarification of a
reference to the twenty- and twenty-first centuries. She doesn't
have any comment on that raising a legal issue.
Number 0757
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT made a motion to adopt Amendment 3
(1-GH1005\A.2, Ford, 2/8/99). It reads as follows:
Page 3, line 9, following "others.":
Insert "The immunity described in this subsection does
not apply unless the state shows by a preponderance of
the evidence that the state used good faith efforts to
avoid the failure that caused the damages claimed in the
civil action."
Page 4, line 23, following "municipality":
Insert "; the immunity described in this paragraph does
not apply unless the municipality shows by a
preponderance of the evidence that the municipality used
good faith efforts to avoid the failure that caused the
damages claimed in the civil action"
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN objected.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT explained Amendment 3 simply sets a minimum
standard of due diligence before qualifying for immunity. It asks
for good faith efforts to avoid the failure that caused the damages
claimed in the civil action. Representative Rokeberg's business
immunity bill includes a section that says efforts have to be made.
The bill now says, "whether you have done zero, a little, a lot you
are treated exactly the same." It doesn't comport with individual
or organizational responsibilities that ought to be responsible for
their actions or inactions. In principle, he is worried about an
unqualified immunity, and practically the state has been able to
meet the problems so far by using the Risk Management Fund because
of the potential harm of lawsuits. He said, "I would submit that
if this blanket, unqualified immunity were enacted a year ago, we
could not have used that fund because there would be no risk to
manage. We would not, even with the best of intentions, you will
not get the same level of effort with no carrot or stick that you
would with some partial one. It--it--is what encourages people to
function people responsibly is some risk that they would be called
to task if they don't. And, to pass a bill that says the states,
municipalities, all sorts of local and state government units have
no more responsibility to act responsibly, I feel practically will
lead to the wrong result, and is just a horrible public policy
message."
Number 0973
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN concurs with the logic of Representative
Croft, but is concerned with the phrase, "preponderance of the
evidence". He is concerned that the state would open itself up to
litigation if a good faith effort can't be shown overwhelmingly to
a judge or jury. He suggested removing the phrase,
"...preponderance of the evidence that the municipality...", and
including the phrase "that it". The new subparagraph would read,
"...does not apply unless the municipality showed that it used good
faith efforts to avoid...".
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Representative Green whether he also has
a problem with that same language in the first subparagraph of
Amendment 3.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN replied it should be changed in both places.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated he has no objection to the friendly
amendment to Amendment 3.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked whether there is any objection. There being no
objection, it was so amended.
Number 1153
CHAIRMAN KOTT stated, it still seems that by creating a
preponderance of evidence standard that must be met before an
immunity defense is evoked, the burden of proof is being shifted to
the governmental body. He wondered whether it would suggest a
number of filings whereby the state and municipalities would tend
to settle out of court which would be expense for them.
Number 1195
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI referred to United States Senate Bill 96,
the year 2000 (Y2K) fix at the federal level, and other legislation
from various states, and noted that everything shows there is at a
minimum some due diligence and good faith effort that is required
in order for immunity to be invoked. The federal bill says, "...an
exercise of due diligence and reasonable care to prevent it...".
The standard is not going to be difficult to achieve. She is
concerned because right now there is just blanket immunity without
a requirement to show some good faith. She thinks there is an
obligation to include some demonstration of good faith.
Number 1315
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA concurs with the comments made by
Representative Murkowski. She asked, by taking preponderance of
evidence out, what will the level of standard be.
Number 1353
MS. VOIGTLANDER stated the court will still know what the standard
is by interpreting the statute. If the statute doesn't give a
standard then the court will have to graft onto what the standard
should be. Practically, if a state or municipality has to make a
showing of a good faith effort, it would end up in trial because
the courts can't grant summary judgment if there are any genuine
issues of material fact. And, in a trial, there really isn't any
immunity because it is intended to cut off a claim so that the
governmental entity doesn't have to incur defense costs. In AS
09.50.250, there are a number of areas where the state is immune,
and it can file a motion to have a claim dismissed at the start,
and in the worst case scenario go to a summary judgment thereby
avoiding the cost of a trial. In addition, the federal bill
mentioned by Representative Murkowski is not intended to be
directed towards governmental entities, but as a standard for the
general business community.
Number 1540
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated is seems that including the amendment
doesn't avoid a lawsuit when that is the intent of the bill.
Number 1555
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated he is concerned because there isn't a
standard of care. He said, "It is nice to have an immunity. It
means you don't have to do any efforts. It means you don't have to
worry about ever getting called to task for what you did. It'd be
nice if this committee could immunize me for everything I ever did
because I wouldn't have to worry so much about being sued. The
worry though is what makes our innate goodness, but also our worry
that we would get called to task for what we do wrong is what makes
us perform correctly. And--and, it's--it's very worrisome to give
anyone a blank check to act as however they want, but I think it's
even more worrisome to give the state and municipalities, the
government, the right to do whatever it wants." In response to
Chairman Kott's concern, he suggested the following language:
The immunity described in this subsection applies only if
the affected party shows that the [state/municipality]
did not use good faith efforts to avoid the failure that
caused the damages claimed in the civil action.
Number 1638
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA noted that would shift the burden back to
the affected party while still having the same standards. It is a
more reasonable way to allow immunity while at the same time
showing some due diligence.
Number 1655
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES agrees with putting the responsibility of
evidence onto the party suing. But, this bill refers to the Y2K
problem, a universal problem, that no one asked for and no one
prepared to get into. It is so expansive that no matter what good
faith efforts are made someone may still be harmed. It makes sense
to give immunity on this issue because it is so unpredictable.
Number 1707
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said: "Thank you Mr. Chairman. While--while
I'm sympathetic to the fact that we need to make sure that
municipalities in the state act--exercise some degree, the fact
that the court sounds like it's gonna shift into a mode that we
don't want, we're talking about having to defend yourself with the
preponderance of evidence. I think perhaps, we've misnumbered
these, and I would think that Representative Croft's number four
would be a little bit better latitude where it says that regard, in
order--we have an immunity unless there is gross negligence, if we
can ever define that term, which says that you actually really
screwed up and therefore, there should be some liability as opposed
to, if I can't defend I'm working my fanny off trying to do
something but I can't show 51 percent, I'm dead meat. To me,
that's too severe because I think everybody is made aware that
there is at least potentially a Y2K problem. And, we have just
allocated a lot of funds to try and correct that. Would the courts
say that whatever ended up being $14 million is an effort to--to
avoid or is that a preponderance of evidence or is that just so be
it we've got a $23 billion trust fund so this really isn't
preponderance of evidence?"
Number 1796
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA stated, in response to Representative
James' comment, the intention of the amendment is for a finding and
showing of fact under circumstances where a municipality hasn't
done anything thereby allowing the court to go forward.
Number 1836
MS. VOIGTLANDER stated, practically, unless the bill says
otherwise, the court can't make findings of fact if they are
disputed. The party would make a motion for a summary judgment,
and if there are material issues of fact, the court couldn't rule
resulting in a battle of the experts of due diligence standards.
It isn't much different than arguing reasonable efforts in a
negligence case. Practically, as long as there are genuine issues
of material fact, there is the possibility of going to trial. The
more sophisticated the issue, the more complex the litigation.
Number 1918
MICHAEL GATTI, Attorney, Matanuska-Susitna Borough; Member, Alaska
Municipal League (AML), testified via teleconference from Mat-Su.
In general, the AML supports the bill, but the amendments are
problematic. A good-faith effort requirement actually guts the
immunity. There is already a preference on the part of the Alaska
Supreme Court not to grant summary judgment. It has said that
negligent cases are usually fact-intensive, therefore, a summary
judgment will unlikely be granted. In addition, a trial is very
expensive, impacts the public entity being litigated, and distracts
the officials that should be serving the public. In addition, it
is not unusual for the legislature to grant blanket immunity for
certain governmental activities. There is a laundry list of
immunities in statute. It is a good idea because public officials
engaging in activities are presumed to be acting (indisc.) and
there should be protection without fear of litigation. Typically,
the burden to show that a public official did not act (indisc.) is
on the person charging the wrongdoing, and the good faith and
preponderance of evidence language shifts that burden to the
municipalities. Furthermore, in reference to Representative
Croft's statement, he has legislative immunity. He cited State v.
Dankworth and Kerttula v. Abude (ph) as examples of legislative
immunity cases. In addition, while the Matanuska-Susistna Borough
has been diligently involved in Y2K issues, other communities that
don't have the professional resources or money could be unduly
penalized devastating their treasuries. In addition, Ms.
Voigtlander is correct about the summary judgment issue, It could
open the floodgates for litigation. The big law firms in the Lower
48 are gearing up for Y2K litigation. In addition, AS 09.65.070
talks about immunity for 911 emergency services. He wondered
whether there would be a conflict between the immunity granted in
the bill with a preponderance of evidence and good faith and the
immunity to the 911 system. In summary, municipalities act in good
faith. Their conduct is to do the best job for their public. They
need the help of the legislature so that they don't suffer with
lawsuits taking their time away from important public business.
Number 2286
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Mr. Gatti whether he heard the
amendment by Representative Croft shifting the burden back to the
affected party.
MR. GATTI replied yes. He urged the committee members not to adopt
any of the amendments.
Number 2326
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Mr. Gatti whether he agrees that
simply showing good faith is not a very high standard to require
municipalities to live up to.
MR. GATTI replied municipalities already engage in good-faith
conduct. Either way the burden is shifted, the question is passing
muster on a summary judgment, and that likelihood is remote.
Number 2373
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT made a motion to amend Amendment 3 to read as
follows:
Page 3, line 9, following "others.":
The immunity described in this subsection applies only if
the affected party shows that the [state] did not use
good fail efforts to avoid the failure that caused the
damages claimed in the civil action.
Page 4, line 23, following "municipality":
The immunity described in this subsection applies only if
the affected party shows that the [municipality] did not
use good fail efforts to avoid the failure that caused
the damages claimed in the civil action.
CHAIRMAN KOTT ruled the motion out of order.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT withdrew Amendment 3 and submitted the new
text as Amendment 4.
Number 2423
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT made a motion to adopt Amendment 4. It reads
as follows:
Page 3, line 9, following "others.":
The immunity described in this subsection applies only if
the affected party shows that the [state] did not use
good fail efforts to avoid the failure that caused the
damages claimed in the civil action.
Page 4, line 23, following "municipality":
The immunity described in this subsection applies only if
the affected party shows that the [municipality] did not
use good fail efforts to avoid the failure that caused
the damages claimed in the civil action.
REPRESENTATIVES JAMES AND GREEN objected.
Number 2456
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN suggested including the phrase, "by clear and
convincing evidence", after the word "shows" thereby increasing the
hurdle for litigation.
TAPE 99-13, SIDE B
Number 0001
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN continued. There could be rash of small
claims court types of litigation. But, having to show clear and
convincing evidence might deter some litigation.
Number 0024
CHAIRMAN KOTT appreciates raising the threshold because 80 out of
the 200 critical functions of government are in compliance with
Y2K.
Number 0042
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated there is nothing wrong with giving
immunity for the Y2K problem. Anything else done will not avoid
lawsuits or costs.
Number 0060
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated it changes the standard and puts a
significant burden on the affected party. It isn't his first
choice, but if it helps put a standard of care so that the state is
not absolving in blanket those that have done nothing, he can
accept it as a friendly amendment.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked whether there is objection to the friendly
amendment. There being none, Amendment 4, as amended, was so
adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI suggested hearing from Ms. Voigtlander
regarding Amendment 4, as amended.
Number 0104
MS. VOIGTLANDER stated it is a higher standard of proof under civil
standards of proof. "Preponderance of evidence" is characterized
as 51 percent. "Clear and convincing" is a much higher standard,
and is imposed for a finding of punitive damage against an
individual.
Number 0142
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked Ms. Voigtlander whether it makes the
amendment any more acceptable to her.
MS. VOIGTLANDER replied it is a policy issue rather than a legal
issue. Clear and convincing evidence is easier to work with, but
the court may say there are genuine issues of material fact
precluding a summary judgment. And, under case law in Alaska on
summary judgment, any issue of material fact has to go to trial.
Number 0194
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Ms. Voigtlander whether it is true
that there is a better chance of passing a summary judgment motion
if the standard is raised to clear and convincing.
MS. VOIGTLANDER replied, as opposed to a lower threshold, yes.
CHAIRMAN KOTT noted that the objection is still maintained. A roll
call vote was taken. Representatives Green, Murkowski, Croft and
Kerttula voted in favor of the motion. Representatives James and
Kott voted against the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 4-2.
Number 0283
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT made a motion to adopt Amendment 5
(1-GH1005\A.4, Ford, 2/8/99). It reads as follows:
Page 2, line 29:
Delete "consequences"
Insert "damage to property as a result"
Page 3, line 1, following "for":
Insert "property damage"
Page 3, line 3, following "action":
Insert "for property damage"
Page 3, line 5:
Delete "damages"
Insert "damage to property"
Page 4, line 19, following "is":
Insert "an action for property damage that is"
Page 5, line 9, following "for":
Delete "damages"
Insert "damage to property"
CHAIRMAN KOTT objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT explained Amendment 5 limits immunity to
property damages. In other words, if an inaction, negligence or
action causes personal injury, there would still be the ordinary
negligent standard, and this immunity would apply in property
damages.
CHAIRMAN KOTT stated he doesn't see the rationale for not affording
blanket immunity and is not clear on what would be reasonable. He
said, "How many times would a hospital have to go to a chip maker
to determine whether or not it was 'reasonable' in its approach to
resolving the Y2K?"
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Ms. Voigtlander to comment on Amendment 5.
Number 0369
MS. VOIGTLANDER stated personal injuries can be bodily claims and
emotional claims. Many of the states that have grappled with this
Y2K issue have also grappled with the difference between bodily and
personal injuries.
CHAIRMAN KOTT maintained his objection. A roll call vote was
taken. Representatives Green, James, Murkowski and Kott voted
against the motion. Representatives Croft and Kerttula voted in
favor of the motion. The motion failed by a vote of 4-2.
Number 0453
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a conceptual amendment to include the
phrase, "this stuff that we have done in no way diminishes a state
or municipality's immunity under any other legal doctrine or
provision of law". He doesn't want this kind of statement to be
utilized and extracted for some other kind of litigation.
Number 0481
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he doesn't have an objection, but he
isn't sure that it is necessary.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked whether there is objection. There being no
objection, it was so adopted. He noted a bill drafter will have to
work on the language.
Number 0511
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a motion to move HB 57, as amended, from
the committee with individual recommendations and the attached
fiscal note(s). There being no objection CSHB 57(JUD), was so
moved from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
CHAIRMAN KOTT called for a brief at-ease at 2:13 p.m., and called
the meeting back to order at 2:16 p.m.
HJR 3 - CONST. AM: WILDLIFE INITIATIVES
HJR 7 - CONST. AM: INITIATIVE/REFERENDUM PETITIONS
HJR 25 - CONST. AM: FISH & WILDLIFE INITIATIVES
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the next order of business is HJR 3,
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to initiatives regarding natural resources belonging to
the state; HJR 7, Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the
State of Alaska relating to initiative and referendum petitions;
and HJR 25, Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State
of Alaska relating to a petition for an initiative or referendum
regarding fish or wildlife.
CHAIRMAN KOTT called on Cory Winchell, staff to Representative Pete
Kott, to present a cross-analysis of the three resolutions.
Number 0604
CORY WINCHELL, Administrative Assistant to Representative Pete
Kott, Alaska State Legislature, noted he is an attorney in the
state of Washington and technically he is not a counsel in this
jurisdiction. Nevertheless, HJR 3 pertains to only natural
resources and requires a two-thirds voter approval to be enacted.
HJR 7 pertains to all initiative issues and requires that 10
percent of the votes cast in the previous election must come from
30 house districts. HJR 25 pertains only to fish and wildlife
resources and requires that 10 percent of the votes cast in the
previous election come from 40 house districts. For HJR 7 and HJR
25 there is no change to passing an initiative; they still require
50 percent plus 1.
Number 0699
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Mr. Winchell whether HJR 3 deals with an
initiative once it is on the ballot while HJR 7 and HJR 25 deal
with how it gets to the ballot.
MR. WINCHELL replied correct. HJR 3 looks for voter approval.
Number 0742
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated 10 percent of those who voted in the
preceding general election in each house district is about 500 to
600 signatures per district. That is not insurmountable.
CHAIRMAN KOTT stated at the last election there were 227,156 total
ballots cast. Not all of the those were for house members, but 10
percent of those who voted in the preceding general election would
be needed to get on the ballot. Two of the resolutions require
that number, but it has to be spread around the districts.
MR. WINCHELL reiterated that HJR 3 doesn't make any change to the
10 percent requirement, but once an initiative is on the ballot, it
requires two-thirds of the votes cast to be adopted.
CHAIRMAN KOTT indicated HJR 7 and HJR 25 still require 50 percent
plus 1 of the votes cast to be adopted.
Number 0819
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES referred to HJR 7 and asked whether one
signature in each of the districts in enough or does there have to
be a certain amount in each district.
MR. WINCHELL replied there has to be at least 10 percent of the
ballots cast in 30 districts while still meeting the initial 10
percent threshold.
CHAIRMAN KOTT called on Representative Con Bunde, sponsor of HJR 3,
to come before the committee.
Number 0857
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE, Alaska State Legislature, stated HJR 3
would raise the bar at the end of the initiative process. Alaska
is a resource dependent state with past oil paying for 85 percent
of the cost of government. He strongly believes that resources
should be managed by trained professionals and ideally politics
should be kept out. In other states where the legislature has set
fish and game limits and seasons, it gets politicized. He said,
"We have hired some well-compensated experts who have studied
resource management and we really are foolish not to defer to their
judgement." Legislators get to hear their judgement via the
legislative process; but, unfortunately, the general public is not
often privy to their judgement through the initiative process. He
has chosen to limit his resolution to natural resources because
they are so critical to the state. He doesn't intend to preclude
or limit the public process in any way. In fact, he thinks the
resolution elevates the public's ability to be involved in the
initiative process. Others might argue that other areas are
important, such as civil rights, but that's not his role to discuss
at this point. He has confidence in the voters and wants to keep
their access open, but the influence of the media on behavior is
considerable. He cited the Superbowl as an example where
commercials were sold for millions of dollars because the people
who purchase the exposures understand the incredible impact on
public perception and the media. The vast majority of Alaskans
have access to televisions, Internet, radios and are susceptible to
influence by the media. He is also very aware of the rural-urban
split, another reason for introducing the resolution. One-half of
the population lives in Anchorage and conceivably an initiative
could be passed with virtually the support of one city, therefore,
raising the bar to two-thirds requires a broader participation
statewide. According to other states that have raised the
requirements of participation in the initiative process, the
courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have said that it is not
constitutional. He thinks and according to testimony from Tam Cook
from Legislative Legal Counsel, HJR 3 meets the requirements of the
Alaska Supreme Court. He has no guess as to what the U.S. Supreme
Court would say, however. The resolution simply elevates the need
to educate voters. Past folks who have worked on initiatives have
admitted to exaggeration, distortion and deception to encourage
voters to sign. He said, "I think by requiring a higher level of
acceptance in the public, a higher level of pass, that we
can't--we're less likely to have folks who will go to a momentary
majority to... Without stepping on anyone's toes, I would point at
the last gubernatorial election as to how some folks could under
influence a great deal of money perhaps come to a momentary
conclusion that they later regretted or changes their opinion on."
The resolution will require more factual information and fewer of
these feel-good, quick distortion kinds of arguments. He noted
that some states have been negatively affected by "ballot box
biology." He asked the committee members to consider whether 50
percent plus 1 of the voters makes a very definitive decision about
commercial fishing, hunting, specific means or methods of hunting,
oil issues, timber, mining, etc. Is that truly a reflection of the
will of the people when 49.9 percent of the people might be opposed
to it? Is this indeed an opportunity to disenfranchise a large
portion of the voters? Now, most issues do not pass with that
close of a margin, but it is a possibility. He stressed that he is
not trying to exclude the public in the initiative process, but by
raising the bar he encourages public participation. He said,
"Certainly, if I support an issue and I need to know I get--need to
get two-thirds of the voters to support this issue, I agree to work
even harder and more diligent. And, of course if I oppose the
issue, I may work very hard because I realize I do have an
opportunity of stopping it. So I think it cuts both ways." In
reference to those who don't want the current system changed, an
initiative would have to be approved by the present system. If
those who oppose it have a high level of confidence in the current
system, then they have no reason to fear this resolution. The
public will ultimately decide. In conclusion, he thinks the bar
should be raised for something as important as the allocation of
natural resources.
Number 1400
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Representative Bunde what percentage of
initiatives pass with a two-thirds vote versus a simple majority.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE replied he doesn't know of any natural
resource initiative that has passed with a two-thirds vote. That
might have been because only 50 percent was needed, however.
Number 1436
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked Representative Bunde whether there
is a definition of what applies to natural resources.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE replied at the state constitutional convention
"natural resources" was discussed as those resources found in their
natural state. It might be something that the courts end up
deciding. For the record, his definition of natural resources is
those resources that are found in a natural state: land, water,
animals and fish.
Number 1516
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referred to a list of initiatives and asked
Representative Bunde which of the initiatives would he classify as
natural resources.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE cited the Disposal of State Lands, and
Personal Consumption of Fish and Game initiatives as examples. He
noted that this will not affect the subsistence proposal.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Representative Bunde whether the
Claiming State Ownership of Federal Land initiative would be
classified as natural resources.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE replied it sounds a little ambiguous. He
further cited Relating to Same Day Airborne Hunting of Certain
Animals, Relating to Trapping Wolves with Snares, and Repeal of
Limited Entry as examples of natural resource initiatives. In
spite of the importance of natural resources to Alaska, there have
been a minimal number of natural resource initiatives addressing
management and allocation.
Number 1648
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted the only initiatives that would have
been affected since statehood are Relating to Same Day Airborne
Hunting of Certain Animals and Disposal of State Lands.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated it still would not have guaranteed
failure or passage of either one of those initiatives because the
ground rules would have been different.
Number 1711
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Representative Bunde whether this
should be part of a constitutional convention.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE replied, according to a four-prong test from
the Alaska Supreme Court, this meets the criteria for an
initiative.
CHAIRMAN KOTT called on Representative Bill Williams, sponsor of
HJR 7, to come before the committee.
Number 1767
REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS, Alaska State Legislature, explained
he introduced HJR 7 to ensure that there is statewide support
before putting an initiative before the voters, particularly
because population dispersements allow sponsors to get the required
signatures from one region or community. He is concerned that the
whole of Alaska will suffer with a limited perspective of an
initiative on a ballot. House Joint Resolution 7 ensures that
people from Saxman to Barrow are able to have input. He noted in
1998 there were only 48 signatures from Ketchikan for the Relating
to Trapping Wolves With Snares initiative, 28 for the Relating to
Requiring a Term Limits Pledge for Candidates initiative, 34 for
the Relating to Allowing Medical Use of Marijuana initiative, 24
for the Relating to Requiring Government to Use English initiative,
and 31 for the Relating to Prohibiting Billboards initiative.
Number 1930
CHAIRMAN KOTT stated requiring 10 percent to come from various
districts would give greater representation. Given that there are
initiatives that should pass and those that shouldn't pass, he
asked Representative Williams what would be the public reaction on
an initiative for legislative term limits, for example.
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS replied he doesn't know how to answer that
question. He noted that the initiative article was put in the
constitution when there wasn't any telecommunications like today -
faxes, telephones, etc. - and most of the population was in
Southeast. This resolution wouldn't make it more difficult; he is
just trying to get a broad statewide perspective.
Number 2120
CHAIRMAN KOTT noted it would be more difficult in the sense that
someone from New York couldn't stand outside the Anchorage
International Airport to collect signatures. It would require
going to the various districts.
Number 2142
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE commented that he doesn't see any competition
between the three approaches or whether one would preclude the
other. He also doesn't see a problem with all three going through
the process so that the public has a choice.
Number 2199
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Representative Williams whether the 10 percent
required from the individual house districts would come from the
total votes cast or the total votes cast for the house member in a
particular district.
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS replied it would come from the house
district. There would have to be a total of 10 percent of the
votes cast throughout the state and 10 percent from each house
district. For example, in Ketchikan about 6,300 votes were cast,
therefore, 630 signatures would be needed.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Representative Williams whether the 6,300
figure was votes cast for the house member or total votes cast.
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS replied total votes cast.
CHAIRMAN KOTT noted there is a difference between the total votes
cast for the state versus the total votes cast for the house
members. In 1998, 227,156 votes were cast statewide, and 199,000
votes were cast for house members.
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS suggested asking the Division of Elections.
Number 2353
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked Representative Williams how long is
allowed to gather signatures for an initiative petition.
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS replied probably one to two years. It took
two years to get the Relating to Requiring a Term Limits Pledge for
Candidates initiative on the ballot. He suggested asking the
Division of Elections for specifics.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI likes the idea of getting support from all
areas of the sate, but she is concerned that a tight window might
cause it to be difficult, especially because many of the
initiatives are grassroots efforts.
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS noted there were signatures from every
district for the Relating to Trapping Wolves With Snares
initiative. He doesn't think a time limit would hurt.
Number 2482
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referred to the 1998 initiatives...
TAPE 99-14, SIDE A
Number 0001
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT continued. None of the 1998 initiatives would
have been approved under Representative Williams' resolution.
CHAIRMAN KOTT noted that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Representative Williams whether any of
the initiatives since statehood would have been approved.
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS suggested asking the Division of Elections.
CHAIRMAN KOTT stated he doubts seriously that one would have been
approved.
Number 0130
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Representative Williams whether there
is any state that allows an electronic filing. She is concerned
about the 11 house districts that can't be reached except by plane.
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS replied he doesn't know and hasn't looked
into it.
CHAIRMAN KOTT noted that most of those districts have telephones
and somebody could phone out there and organize a signature
collector. It should be looked at since this is the electronic
age.
Number 0188
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS noted that many people go to malls,
basketball games, airports, or any other place that people gather
to collect signatures. It is so much easier to go to those places
then to go to Saxman, for example.
CHAIRMAN KOTT called on Representative Scott Ogan, sponsor of HJR
25, to come before the committee.
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced there is a proposed committee substitute
for HJR 25 and called for a motion to adopt it.
Number 0302
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a motion to adopt proposed committee
substitute for HJR 25 (1-LS0575\D, Utermohle, 3/17/99). There
being no objection, it was so adopted.
Number 0339
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN, Alaska State Legislature, stated the
proposed committee substitute is the result of testimony from
David Kelleyhouse of the Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC). The
approach of simply relying on the authority of Article VIII,
section 2 of the state constitution made a lot of sense to him.
It's clear that the legislature has the authority to manage the
natural resources. He has always felt that management of fish and
wildlife issues from the ballot box is bad public policy. The
proposed committee substitute would place a restriction on putting
fish and wildlife initiatives on the ballot thereby eliminating
contentious fights and outside interests. For example, the Alaska
Outdoor Council raised a quarter of a million dollars last year to
fight the Relating to Trapping Wolves With Snares initiative. He
noted that HJR 25 has the support of the AOC, several Native
organizations, rural residents and users of the resources. He
believes it would mitigate a legal challenge because of the
authority granted to the legislature in Article VIII, section 2 of
the state constitution. It is not a revision of the constitution;
it is an honest approach. According to the minutes of the
constitutional convention, it appears that there was a lot of
discussion on making sure that the initiative process was available
to the people because of the rural folks who had a hard time
getting to the capital. But, it can be argued that Alaska is
different now. While the capital is not as accessible, it's
certainly far more accessible than when the constitution was first
crafted, there is electronic media and teleconferencing now
enabling the people to testify.
Number 0695
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Representative Ogan what is the common
goal of all three joint resolutions.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN replied the common goal is to simply raise the
standard of what initiatives get to a ballot. House Joint
Resolution 25 takes a different course by simply recognizing the
authority of the legislature given to it by the constitution.
Number 0732
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Representative Ogan whether he reads
Article VIII, section 2 of the state constitution as saying it's
the legislature's job and not others.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN replied it says, "The legislature shall provide
for the utilization, development, and conservation of all natural
resources belonging to the State,...".
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted it could be read as a description of how
it is done for the maximum benefit of the people. He reads it as
a limitation on how it can be used, that it must be used for the
maximum benefit of the people. Representative Ogan reads it as a
delegation of the sole authority in the natural resource area.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN believes it is a delegation of authority and
with that authority the legislature "does it" for the maximum
benefit of the people. He would argue managing fish and wildlife
by the ballot box doesn't always take into consideration the
maximum benefit of all the people.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Representative Ogan whether letting the
people "do it" violates Article VIII, section 2 of the state
constitution.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN replied yes.
Number 0838
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Representative Ogan whether requiring
all 40 house districts to have 10 percent would stifle any future
petitions. He wondered whether that would allow one or two
districts the prerogative to veto the will of the majority of the
state.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN replied it is not an issue now that the
proposed committee substitute has been adopted.
CHAIRMAN KOTT noted the proposed committee substitute would not
change any of the processes involved. It would require the same 10
percent to get an initiative to the ballot and the same 50 percent
plus 1 to approve it.
Number 0916
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Representative Ogan whether after the
amendment there wouldn't be an initiative process concerning
resource issues and those would be left to the legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN replied it would eliminate the possibility of
a fish and wildlife initiative of ever being put on a ballot.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Representative Ogan whether he has
had the chance to ask Legislative Legal Counsel's opinion since
this is such a broad, sweeping change to the constitution.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN replied Article XI, section 7 of the state
constitution already restricts certain items to be defined by an
initiative. The resolution simply adds a category to that.
Number 1015
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said she would like to see what Legislative
Legal Counsel thinks about it. Taking the right to vote off the
table completely seems like a broad enough change to require going
back to a constitutional convention. She would defer to
Legislative Legal Counsel's opinion, however.
CHAIRMAN KOTT opened the meeting up to the teleconference network.
Number 1111
DAVID G. KELLEYHOUSE, Representative, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC),
testified in Juneau in support of CSHJR 25(JUD). He commended
Representatives Bunde, Williams and Ogan for their resolutions. He
was involved with the Coalition For the Alaskan Way of Life during
the last election. Alaska is turning into an urban state, and it's
possible for outside groups such as Friends of the Animals
Foundation to target through electronic media and piecemeal this
state's way of life disadvantaging rural people, hunters and
fishers. The AOC believes that Article VIII of the state
constitution is unique and the legislature has done a fine job
managing the natural resources over the last four decades. It has
been very responsible in managing and delegating resources to the
Board of Fisheries and Board of Game. The AOC prefers a more
straightforward approach in recognizing fish and game as public
trust resources that are best managed by the current process - the
legislature, boards and Department of Fish and Game. He referred
to a communication from the Friends of Animals Foundation
indicating that since they lost at the last election they will keep
coming back until they get what they want. It is just a matter of
time before the Alaskan way of life comes to an end. The AOC can't
generate the amount of resistance that it did last year every other
year. It just about bled it dry. The Friends of the Animals
Foundation will prevail. They have multi-millions of dollars to
work with and they have already said that they are aiming at
Alaska. He reiterated the AOC would urge for a straightforward
approach. If the legislature were to put this amendment on the
ballot, it could run one more campaign with Native and other
outdoor organizations. He urged the committee members to pass
CSHJR 25(JUD). The other resolutions wouldn't harm the AOC in
anyway; it just believes that HJR 25 is very honest.
Number 1342
LAURA SKAER, Executive Director, North West Mining Association,
testified via teleconference from Washington in support of HJR 3.
The association is a 104 year old trade association representing
the hard rock mining industry throughout the Western United States
with about 200 members in Alaska, as well as members throughout the
U.S. and Canada. It is the largest mining association in the U.S.
The association supports HJR 3 based on the experience of two
initiatives in Montana in 1996. One was denominated as a clear
water initiative, but the language didn't amend any of the state's
clean water laws. It amended the state's metal mining Act that
would have imposed standards to ban any future metal mining
operations. If it had passed all municipal water systems would
have failed the new standard, except one. It took a tremendous
effort from the mining industry to educate the people to turn the
support around. Another initiative purported to protect
individuals from corporate money unfairly tilting the ballot box.
Interestingly, 60 percent of the money to support it came from
outside the state of Montana even though it was championed as an
individual rights initiative. It passed by a 52 to 48 percent
margin. As a result, the same group that pushed the water quality
initiative came back and narrowed the focus to ban the use of
cyanide chemicals in open pit gold and silver mines. The members
promoting the initiative were quoted several time as saying that
cyanide really isn't the issue, but it gets the voters' attention.
The real purpose was to stop large scale metal mining. And,
because of the ban on corporate participation, the mining industry
was essentially muzzled. That ban was reversed in court and the
mining industry was able to close the gap on public opinion in a
short time. As a result, an industry that has been a simple part
of Montana's heritage and development has been banned by a 52 to 48
percent of the vote in a tainted election. The organization
supporting the initiative has announced that it intends to take its
experience to other Western mining states. The counties now in
Montana are realizing that their source of revenue will be depleted
and eventually devastated. More importantly, while the signatures
were being pushed, the mining industry begin to realize it didn't
want to invest in the state, especially since it only takes 50.1
percent of the voters to ban it in the future. It needs more
security for its investments. In conclusion, she announced that
she has visited Alaska and several of its mining industries and
believes that HJR 3 is an excellent way to ensure Alaska's natural
resources are managed by Alaskans, not outside influences and
groups.
Number 1820
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Ms. Skaer how many times she has been
in Alaska and for a total of how many days.
MS. SKAER replied 3 times for a total of 11 days.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Ms. Skaer whether she has ever been
to Juneau.
MS. SKAER replied no.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA stated she doesn't know the human death
toll from cyanide, but in Juneau there have been fish killed. She
asked Ms. Skaer to clarify that there have been deaths from other
species.
MS. SKAER replied she is aware that there have been some cyanide
spills that have resulted in damage to aquatic resources.
Number 1892
HOLLY CARROLL testified via teleconference from Fairbanks in
opposition to HJR 3, HJR 7 and HJR 25. This process is going to
lock out a lot of Alaskans from their only check on the
legislature. As Representative Ogan said, the legislature does
have the power over the resources. It also has two additional
checks: to amendment any ballot initiative and to repeal within
two years any ballot initiative. That's plenty of power. In
addition, ballot initiatives are already very expensive and driving
up the cost won't help the rural populations. As a result,
initiative groups will have to enlist the help of outside
organizations to be able to afford an effort when outside
organizations don't vote on the final ballot. In reference to
media campaigns that have mislead the public, it is true for both
sides of an issue. The resolutions won't clarify that. They will
only take the public out of the process. In conclusion, she
reiterated all three of the bills damage the process and lock
Alaskans out of the initiative process when it is the only check on
the legislature.
Number 2055
JIM LEVINE testified via teleconference from Homer in opposition to
HJR 3, HJR 7 and HJR 25. He took time off work today in order to
testify because he feels very strongly about the initiative process
that the Founding Fathers provided in the Alaska Constitution. The
resolutions will effectively eliminate the initiative process for
the voice of the average Alaskan. In the 40 years since statehood
less than 30 initiatives have been placed on the ballot and less
than 20 have actually passed into law. The process is already
difficult enough and to make it more difficult would allow groups
from outside to get an initiative on the ballot effectively
shutting out both rural and urban citizens. He personally believes
in the value of the state government process, but fewer and fewer
citizens agree. More and more people feel disenfranchised
believing that government doesn't represent their ideals, and that
it is a waste of time to even try. Making the initiative process
an impossible goal would disenfranchise even more citizens. He
doesn't agree with all the initiatives that have been circulated or
voted on, but he does believe in the right of citizens to petition
their government. He said, "If you believe in government by the
people for the people, these bills are stopping the heart of 'by
the people'. Please don't allow any of these bill to go forward."
Number 2149
CHAIRMAN KOTT added that the three propositions require the
existing system for any of them to be adopted.
Number 2170
BOB GREEN, President, Alaska Frontiers Trapper Association,
testified via teleconference from Mat-Su in support of HJR 25. The
association is concerned that large, urban areas influence
legislation restricting game management when the majority of the
areas aren't able to respond. The law would benefit the state as
a whole.
Number 2234
DOUG YATES, Representative, Alaskans For Common Ground, testified
via teleconference from Fairbanks in opposition to HJR 3, HJR 7 and
HJR 25. They show a lack of trust of Alaska's citizens. He asked,
why would the Republican leadership work to make it more difficult
for citizens to petition its government? Why would Republicans
make it more difficult for citizens to participate in public
decisions? There are already mechanisms within the law that allow
the legislature to deal with legitimate problems with initiative or
referendum created legislation. It appears that the Republican
leadership fears its citizens, and wishes to remove the mechanism
that promote inclusive political action. A free and open
government should not need to create more obstacles for a
responsive government. These resolutions are an affront to all
Alaskans.
Number 2298
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE noted that none of the resolutions are coming
from the Majority leadership.
Number 2327
MIKE YOURKOWSKI testified via teleconference from Homer in
opposition to HJR 3, HJR 7 and HJR 25. It is easy for legislators
to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot, but virtually
impossible for the citizens of Alaska. The resolutions are coming
from a limited perspective and the cure is worse than the disease.
As a city councilman, he loves getting input from his constituents
and pays close attention to them. The resolutions will make the
low voter turnout worse because they will disenfranchise a large
portion of the population. In regards to HJR 25, the existing
restrictions are to maintain the separation of powers between the
branches of government, not to restrict the issues. Restricting
issues opens the doors up to special interests and deprives the
citizens of their power.
CHAIRMAN KOTT noted the theory behind HJR 3 is to bring out
additional voters who would have otherwise stayed home.
Number 2437
MICHELE KECK (PH) testified via teleconference from Anchorage on
HJR 3, HJR 7 and HJR 25. She has been very involved in the
signature gathering phase of the initiative process. She has
coordinated both paid and volunteer signatures. Changing the rules
for initiatives is tinkering with an important part of the public
process. Ballot access should not be limited by making the
signature requirements harder. It's the same as putting more
restrictions on who can run for office. An issue is really fought
during the campaign phase, not the signature phase, and making it
harder effects everybody in the state. It will take it right out
of the hands of Alaskan citizens and make it accessible to outside
interests.
TAPE 99-14, SIDE B
Number 0001
MS. KECK (PH) continued. In addition, a popular place to get
signatures was in post offices, but due to a national ruling that
is not possible now. She is concerned about several of the
districts because even the private sector that owns the malls and
stores are preventing people from petitioning there as well. In
addition, going door-to-door to get signatures like candidates
would require going to about 60,000 to 70,000 doors in order to get
10 percent. That is not realistic. The best way to defeat an
initiative is in the campaign, not by eliminating signatures.
There is already a safety valve in place because the legislature
can change an initiative after two years. In conclusion,
regardless of the issue she likes to err on the side of keeping the
current public system in place which gives everyone an equal
opportunity to put something on the ballot.
Number 0069
CHAIRMAN KOTT reiterated that only one of the resolutions really
change the way signatures are collected. It is more difficult
after giving to take it back after two years.
Number 0089
DICK BISHOP testified via teleconference from Fairbanks in support
of CSHJR 25(JUD). He appreciates the legislature's attention to
the initiative process. It is a process that has great public
appeal, but subject to great abuse. He prefers the committee
substitute to HJR 25. It really addresses the problem by removing
spurious initiatives that are hoisted upon the people. At a recent
annual meeting of the Alaska Outdoor Council, the plurality of the
members voted in favor of similar language that Representative Ogan
submitted. It gets to the issue. A current fad with fish and game
management is an end-run on the public, legislative and board
processes with an initiative. He said, "If you have an (indisc.)
to appeal and have enough money to buy enough 30 second sound
bites, you have a darn good chance of winning because there is no
law requiring truth in advertising and whoever can buy the most 30
second sound bites on an initiative campaign or on a political
campaign, I suppose for that matter, has a very good chance of
winning." It was obvious in the last couple of elections, the
initiatives relating to game management were not very
straightforward. There was a great deal of misleading and
inflammatory imagery that exploited the well-meaning, but mostly
uninformed general public. There is no way the initiative process
is effective in managing a common resource property - fish and
wildlife. The framers of the state constitution took great pains
to provide the basis for sound management and since then the
legislatures have worked over the years to build on that
foundation. He strongly urged the legislature to pass CSHJR
25(JUD) to prevent spending thousands of dollars and hours fending
off initiatives that are anti-hunting, -management, -trapping, and
-fishing every two years.
Number 0252
ROD ARNO, President, Alaska Outdoor Council, testified via
teleconference from Mat-Su in support of CSHJR 25(JUD). Fish and
game management is both an art and science. There is a public and
board process, and the Department of Fish and Game gets its
authority from the Administrative Procedure Act. The public
process would not be hampered one bit with the passage of HJR 25.
The two recent wildlife initiatives are the types of activities
that special interest groups are able to argue artfully before the
public without having the science behind the argument.
Number 0371
MICHELLE WILSON (PH) testified via teleconference from Anchorage in
opposition to HJR 3, HJR 7 and HJR 25. They are inherently
unconstitutional. They are an attack on the public initiative
process and bad public policy. If the initiative requirements are
changed then the requirements for constitutional amendments should
also be changed. For example, the same-sex marriage amendment that
just passed should also have gotten 10 percent of the voters in all
30 districts. Why should the public process be limited when the
legislative ballot process for ballot measures would remain the
same? The discussion should be on how to manage campaign financing
once an initiative reaches a ballot, not reform of the initiative
process. She disagrees with the idea of electronic media because
the one-on-one contact with the public is the best part of the
process.
Number 0492
CHAIRMAN KOTT noted that the resolutions are proactive, not
retroactive. They would not affect the results of initiatives that
have already passed.
Number 0510
ERIC HOLLAND testified via teleconference from Fairbanks in
opposition to HJR 3. His daughter likes to change the rules in the
middle of a game, especially when it isn't going well for her.
Similarly, last session some of the legislators wanted to change
the constitutional rules for reapportionment because they feared
Tony Knowles would get reelected. Now, Representative Bunde and
others want to make it necessary for the two-thirds Majority to
adopt an initiative regarding natural resources. Are they afraid
of the majority of Alaskans? Are they trying to lock up control of
the economy? There are valid reasons for the development of
Alaska's natural resources and there are valid reasons for their
conservations. He believes that some of the recent initiatives
have been extreme, but stacking the deck against the right for the
people to decide for themselves is a violation of the principles of
a democratic government. Don't the legislators trust Alaskans to
vote for an Alaskan way of life? he asked. Fight fair and square
- 50/50. In 1996, the people banned same day airborne wolf control
and now SB 74 repeals it two years and one week later. There is
already the power to redress an initiative through the public
process. In reference to Representative Bunde's comments on
trained professionals, the Division of Forestry will not listen to
trained fish and game personnel and insists on logging in sensitive
salmon spawning areas. In addition, the argument for blasting
Anchorage is not very valid. Are we going to make the election of
the governor with a two-thirds majority to avoid Anchorage
governors? Distortion occurs everywhere so there needs to be a
level playing field. Money is generally on the side of
pro-development and the biggest money to blanket the airways is
through commercials. In addition, it is funny that the woman from
Washington who testified earlier blasted outside influence. In
reference to Representative Ogan's comment about the legislature's
right to manage public resources, the maximum benefit of the people
is debatable.
Number 0690
KENNY BARBER testified via teleconference from Mat-Su in support of
HJR 25. The system works the way it is set right now. As a member
of an advisory committee, he spends a lot of time listening to the
public and going to the Board of Game meetings. Everybody has the
same opportunity to speak and the same amount of time.
Number 0747
KATIE KURELLO (PH) testified via teleconference from Anchorage in
opposition to HJR 3, HJR 7 and HJR 25. Having worked on the
billboard initiative, she feels like she is speaking for the
hundreds of Alaskans that she talked to during the campaign who
constantly thanked her for giving them the opportunity to vote on
the issue. The signature process is working to give people the
right to vote. It is not about the actual issue or campaign. It
is already very difficult to get an initiative on the ballot, and
the billboard initiative clearly demonstrates the need for this
process because of the disparity between the vote of the people and
the legislation passed by the legislature.
Number 0814
BYRON HALEY, President, Chitina Dipnetters Association, testified
via teleconference from Fairbanks in support of CSHJR 25(JUD). He
is against wildlife management by ballot initiatives. The
management of the state's fish and wildlife should be done by the
boards and Department of Fish and Game with legislative oversight.
The public has input with the boards to change regulations.
Number 0864
DICK BURLEY, Representative, Interior Wildlife Association,
testified via teleconference from Fairbanks in support of CSHJR
25(JUD). Having served on the Board of Game and having been
involved with local advisory committees, he believes that there is
an adequate process in place for people to implement changes to
fish and game regulations. The people also have the ability to
petition the board, if they want to make changes. It is
frustrating being a board member when people through an initiative
process work on motions and votes using false information and
distortions.
Number 0960
JOEL BENNETT, Co-sponsor, Wolf Management Reform Coalition
(Proposition 3), testified in Juneau on HJR 3, HJR 7 and HJR 25.
In response to Representative Bunde's comments, he is having a hard
time understanding how raising the bar to a two-thirds majority
will produce a higher degree of fact-finding in the initiative
process. The degree of fact-finding has to do with the nature of
the campaign and the work that goes into it. The coalition
realized an effective campaign would have to be waged in various
geographical regions of the state in order to have the support of
the people in those regions. He has sympathy for Representative
Williams' concerns, but 10 percent is an unreasonable number of
signatures to have to gather in rural areas. The coalition would
have had to have gotten 1,000 signatures in District 39 to ensure
400 signature, the 10 percent required in HJR 7. Those efforts in
the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta area would have been sp expensive, time
and cost prohibitive that it would have been a great burden. A
higher percentage may be a reasonable course to follow, but it
should be discussed by a large number of people like a
constitutional convention for many minds to look at the pros and
cons. Representative Ogan, he believes, is trying to accomplish
something that he didn't agree with. He called it sour grapes. He
doesn't like Proposition 3, he doesn't like that statute, and he
clearly wants to engineer something that would prohibit fish and
game matters to be taken up by initiative again. It is foul and
the people will see through it. A subject matter can't be singled
out. There has to be a level playing field. It seems like the
worst case of discrimination. The state supreme court was clear
when it said that the legislature does not have the sole authority
because of the initiative article in the constitution. That
article enumerates what's prohibited, and by implication anything
that is not on the list is permitted. In response to the
distortion issue, both sides wage campaigns using media to the most
effective way possible. It also happens in campaigns for elected
officials and legislators. There is simply no way to control that,
except to trust the people to sift through and take what is valid
and accurate and discard what is not. The ultimate test is in the
voting booth when a voter is presented with the clear language of
an initiative, as well as the impartial wording from the attorney
general in the Official Election Pamphlet. The public is
sophisticated enough to understand what is and what isn't
distortion.
Number 1300
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Mr. Bennett whether there is a percentage that
would be acceptable.
MR. BENNETT replied, based on his experience in District 39, even
1 percent or 2 percent is quite a chore. It means that one cannot
stand on the street in Anchorage and hope that enough people walk
by from District 39, but actually travel out to the district.
Certainly, anything above 5 percent is a true burden on the public.
Number 1397
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated he can understand how it would be
difficult to get a representative sample from 30 house districts,
but there is no requirement for the signature gathers who cluster
around the metropolitan areas to be citizens. They get anywhere
from $1 to $5 a signature. As a result, there are a significant
number of initiatives that get to the ballot, but fail because the
people either don't really know what they're signing or they aren't
representative of the state's attitude. He understands trying to
reduce the time and money spent on these types of efforts, and
asked Mr. Bennett whether he has any suggestions.
MR. BENNETT replied the issue of paid signature gathering is a
legitimate one. In the case of Proposition 3, there were a
percentage of both, and he didn't feel that it was weighted towards
the paid signature portion so that it was unfair. Attention could
be paid to that issue, however. Sometimes that period of time is
short and during the most severe time of the year that without
assistance and volunteers, regular Alaskans just simply can't get
the number of signatures required. It is a difficult question. It
is one that is appropriate for a larger forum.
Number 1552
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated part of the reason for these types of
resolutions is to make it more difficult to get signatures,
especially for controversial petitions. A hurdle might do away
with some and increase the percentage of those that pass. There
seems to be an awful lot of petitions that just don't make it.
MR. BENNETT reiterated 10 percent is way too high based on his
experience. In addition, there isn't much guidance from the
constitutional convention for establishing 10 percent, perhaps it
should go to a larger forum. It is a serious matter; it affects
basic rights.
Number 1674
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES referred to his comment of needing 400
signatures to get 10 percent in District 39, and asked Mr. Bennett
whether a ration of 10 to 1 is used for getting signatures or would
that just be the case for outlying areas.
MR. BENNETT replied, if 400 signatures are needed, it would be
foolish to submit less than 700.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Mr. Bennett what number of signatures is
achievable with 5 percent or 3 percent or 4 percent. There are
approximately 25 urban districts and 15 rural districts and the
resolution calls for 30 of the 40 districts.
MR. BENNETT replied, considering the efforts of Proposition 3,
there wouldn't have been a problem getting a lower percentage of
signatures in 30 districts. Proposition 3 prided itself on the
widespread support it got in both rural and urban areas.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted she understands that widespread support
because there was already a rule against it.
MR. BENNETT said, "What--what was against the law was shooting from
a plane. The Airborne Hunting Act has prohibited that since the
70's. Some of the people have testified today suggest that we
distorted the campaign and tried to lead people to think that was
legal and that's all we were prohibiting and that's pretty
outrageous to us because most people knew that you couldn't shot
from a plane for a long time in Alaska. So--I mean what we
prohibited was exactly what we said we would prohibit which is the
use of airplanes the same day, unless it was a biological
emergency."
MR. BENNETT further stated that 2 percent of the 30 districts
wouldn't be an unreasonable burden, but 5 percent to 10 percent is
elevating the process way beyond what it is now in terms of the
amount of money and people it takes. The initiative process is
hard, and for that reason he believes that there won't be an array
of fish and wildlife initiatives in the future. There might be one
or two more subjects that come up, but by and large the Alaskan
public does not want to affect the nuts and bolts of game
management by initiatives. They are more than happy to let the
board take that onerous, time-consuming and difficult job. But,
there are a few sensitive subjects that reach the larger public.
Number 1980
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Mr. Bennett whether he knows when the
signatures have to be turned in.
MR. BENNETT replied for Proposition 3 they were gathered in
July/August and had to be turned in that fall. It was a short
amount of time given weather conditions in some parts of Alaska.
Number 2079
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA stated there is a year to collect
signatures from the date the booklets are circulated.
CHAIRMAN KOTT called on Gail Fenumiai from the Division of
Elections.
Number 2140
GAIL FENUMIAI, Election Program Specialist, Division of Elections,
Central Office, Office of the Lieutenant Governor, stated the
statute allows for a one-year signature gathering period from the
date the petition booklets are available to the initiative
committee. The majority of initiative committees gear up in the
fall of an odd numbered year which means a petition has to be filed
prior to the convening of the legislative session in an even
numbered year for it to appear on the general election ballot. The
majority of the initiatives that appeared on the 1996 ballot had
the majority of their work done in the fall of 1995.
CHAIRMAN KOTT stated it has to be turned in during the even year to
get on the ballot.
MS. FENUMIAI said correct. In order to appear on the general
election ballot an initiative committee would need to file a
petition prior to the legislative session convening in January.
Number 2240
CHAIRMAN KOTT noted a group could apply in October as long as it
can collect the signatures in time to file it before the
legislature convened.
MS. FENUMIAI replied that is possible, but the application has to
be reviewed by the attorney general's office and the division has
to verify at least 100 qualified signatures. Once that has
happened, booklets are prepared and given to the committee. If
that committee waited until October, it is not likely that it would
be able to get the signatures by the convening of the legislative
session. In addition, last year Senator Sharp sponsored a bill
eliminating the supplementary petition period that a lot of the
groups have relied on in past years. In other words, once an
initiative petition has been filed, there isn't an extra 30 days to
gather signatures if short.
Number 2331
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Ms. Fenumiai asked whether a group could
continue to collect signatures as long as it got them in before the
convening of the legislative session in even numbered years.
MS. FENUMIAI replied they could continue if they have submitted
their petition prior to the one year deadline. If, on its face
when a petition is filed, there are not enough signatures, a group
has time to get more signatures, if it's within its one-year time
frame. If, on its face when a petition is filed, it looks like
there are sufficient signatures, but the division later verifies
that there aren't, a group doesn't get an extra period of time.
Number 2399
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Ms. Fenumiai whether she knows how
many initiatives have tried but didn't get the number of signatures
required.
MS. FENUMIAI replied she doesn't have that information with her,
but she can make it available to the committee.
Number 2485
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Ms. Fenumiai whether the resolutions
affect referendums as well.
TAPE 99-15, SIDE A
Number 0001
MS. FENUMIAI stated she's not sure. Referendums and recalls
generally have the same process, but are covered under a different
section in Title 15.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Ms. Fenumiai whether there has been a
referendum recently.
MS. FENUMIAI replied no. There have been some filed in years past.
She can provide that historical data to the committee as well.
Number 0091
CHAIRMAN KOTT closed the meeting to public testimony and called on
Mr. Winchell to discuss the Pullen v. Ulmer case.
Number 0109
MR. WINCHELL stated in Pullen v. Ulmer an organization known as
F.I.S.H. (Fairness in Salmon Harvest) tried to file an initiative
to allocate 5 percent of the total projected statewide salmon
harvest to the sport fishery. When it got to the ballot, the
United Fisherman of Alaska asked that it be adjoined. The court
grappled with the idea of allocation and whether or not it can be
done by referendum. The court referred to Article XI, section 7 of
the state constitution which says, "The initiative shall not be
used to dedicate revenues, make or repeal appropriations,..."; and,
Thomas v. Rosen (1977) where the Alaska Supreme Court endorsed a
definition of appropriation as, "...setting aside from public
revenue of certain sums of money for specific objects in such a
manner that the executive officer of the government are authorized
to use that money and no more for that object and no other...".
Thomas v. Bailey extended that definition to land. The court found
that the F.I.S.H. initiative constituted an appropriation because
it was allocating 5 percent of a natural resource. He noted a lot
of the initiates that the committee has been discussing might fall
into this purview.
Number 0307
CHAIRMAN KOTT noted that the case came to his attention late this
morning. He thought it would be interesting to the committee
members to at least hear what was uncovered on the surface.
Number 0332
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated the case is very relevant. As he reads
it, an allocation of fish and wildlife is an appropriation thereby
barred from the initiative process. The debate really focuses HJR
25 to things that concern fish and wildlife, but are not allocation
issues. The F.I.S.H. initiative was sold as a management deal, but
if it says this much to this group in order to use...
Number 0405
MR. WINCHELL interjected and stated the F.I.S.H. group tried to
raise the argument that it was a legal fiction, a misnomer, that it
really wasn't an asset. The court said otherwise and invoked a lot
of articles from the state constitution to justify it as well as
other case law.
Number 0482
CHAIRMAN KOTT indicated that all three resolutions will be held
over for further research in light of the case law brought up
towards the end of the meeting. It is relevant to all three
resolutions. The percentage issue also needs to be looked at in
terms of how it restricts the public from participating in the
process.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 0482
CHAIRMAN KOTT adjourned the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting at 4:30 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|