Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/26/1999 03:25 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
April 26, 1999
3:25 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Norman Rokeberg, Chairman
Representative Andrew Halcro, Vice Chairman
Representative Jerry Sanders
Representative Lisa Murkowski
Representative John Harris
Representative Tom Brice
Representative Sharon Cissna
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARINGS
Dental Board of Examiners
Dr. Kenneth L. Crooks - Dillingham
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
Real Estate Commission
Linda L. Freed - Kodiak
Larry Spencer - Juneau
Eleanor F. Oakley - Palmer
- CONFIRMATIONS ADVANCED
SENATE BILL NO. 50 am
"An Act relating to certain boiler and pressure vessel inspections
and inspectors; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED SB 50 am OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 110
"An Act relating to the sale, offer to sell, and labeling of fluid
milk, meat, and meat products."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 167
"An Act relating to mobile home dealers."
- MOVED CSHB 167(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 51(L&C)
"An Act relating to barbers, hairdressers, manicurists, and
cosmetologists; providing that the only qualification necessary for
licensure as a manicurist, other than payment of fees, is
completion of a class that is 12 hours in duration, addresses
relevant health, safety, and hygiene concerns, and is offered
through a school approved by the Board of Barbers and Hairdressers;
and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 183
"An Act relating to the powers and duties of the chair of the
Alaska Public Utilities Commission; relating to membership on the
Alaska Public Utilities Commission; and relating to the annual
report of the Alaska Public Utilities Commission."
- HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 50
SHORT TITLE: BOILER AND PRESSURE VESSEL INSPECTIONS
SPONSOR(S): LABOR & COMMERCE BY REQUEST
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/28/99 109 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
1/28/99 110 (S) L&C
2/18/99 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
2/18/99 (S) MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
2/18/99 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
2/19/99 306 (S) L&C RPT 3DP 1NR
2/19/99 306 (S) DP: MACKIE, HOFFMAN, DONLEY;
2/19/99 306 (S) NR: LEMAN
2/19/99 306 (S) FISCAL NOTE (LABOR)
2/19/99 306 (S) FIN REFERRAL ADDED
3/09/99 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
3/09/99 (S) MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
3/09/99 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
3/09/99 452 (S) FIN RPT 3DP 5NR
3/09/99 452 (S) DP: TORGERSON, ADAMS, DONLEY;
3/09/99 452 (S) NR: PARNELL, GREEN, PETE KELLY,
3/09/99 452 (S) WILKEN, LEMAN
3/09/99 452 (S) PREVIOUS FN (LABOR)
3/10/99 (S) RLS AT 11:45 AM FAHRENKAMP 203
3/10/99 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
3/11/99 475 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 3/11/99
3/11/99 476 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
3/11/99 477 (S) MOTION TO ADVANCE TO 3RD W/DRAWN
3/11/99 477 (S) THIRD READING 3/12 CALENDAR
3/12/99 495 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SB 50
3/12/99 495 (S) RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 1
3/12/99 495 (S) UNAN CONSENT
3/12/99 495 (S) AM NO 1 ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
3/12/99 495 (S) AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING
3/12/99 496 (S) PASSED Y16 N1 E3
3/12/99 496 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE
3/12/99 497 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
3/15/99 453 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
3/15/99 453 (H) L&C, FIN
4/21/99 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
4/21/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD
4/21/99 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
4/26/99 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 110
SHORT TITLE: SALE/LABELING OF MILK PRODUCTS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) HARRIS, Dyson
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
2/24/99 300 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
2/24/99 300 (H) L&C, JUD
3/10/99 418 (H) COSPONSOR(S): DYSON
3/15/99 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
3/15/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD
3/15/99 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
4/19/99 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
4/19/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD
4/19/99 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
4/23/99 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
4/23/99 (H) <BILL POSTPONED TO 4/26>
4/26/99 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 167
SHORT TITLE: REPEAL MOBIL HOME DEALER REGISTRATION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) COWDERY BY REQUEST
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
3/31/99 625 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
3/31/99 625 (H) L&C, FIN
4/23/99 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
4/23/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD
4/23/99 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
4/26/99 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: SB 51
SHORT TITLE: LICENSING OF COSMETOLOGISTS
SPONSOR(S): COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
2/01/99 126 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
2/01/99 126 (S) L&C, FIN
2/16/99 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
2/16/99 (S) MOVED CS (L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
2/16/99 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
2/18/99 285 (S) L&C RPT CS 1DP 3NR NEW TITLE
2/18/99 285 (S) NR: MACKIE, DONLEY, HOFFMAN;
2/18/99 285 (S) DP: TIM KELLY
2/18/99 286 (S) FISCAL NOTES TO SB AND CS (DEC, DCED)
3/16/99 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
3/16/99 (S) SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
3/17/99 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
3/17/99 (S) HEARD AND HELD
3/17/99 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
3/17/99 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
3/26/99 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
3/26/99 (S) MOVED CS (L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
3/26/99 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
3/26/99 699 (S) FIN RPT 6DP 1NR 1AM (L&C) CS
3/26/99 699 (S) DP: TORGERSON, PARNELL, PHILLIPS,
3/26/99 699 (S) ADAMS, WILKEN, LEMAN; NR: DONLEY;
3/26/99 699 (S) AM: GREEN
3/26/99 699 (S) FISCAL NOTE TO CS (DEC)
3/29/99 (S) RLS AT 12:00 PM FAHRENKAMP 203
3/29/99 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
3/31/99 750 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR AND 1 OR 3/31/99
3/31/99 753 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
3/31/99 753 (S) L&C CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
3/31/99 753 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
3/31/99 753 (S) UNAN CONSENT
3/31/99 754 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 51(L&C)
3/31/99 754 (S) PASSED Y17 N1 E2
3/31/99 754 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE
3/31/99 756 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
4/07/99 666 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
4/07/99 666 (H) L&C, FIN
4/14/99 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
4/14/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD SUBCMTE APPOINTED
4/14/99 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
4/26/99 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 183
SHORT TITLE: ALASKA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
SPONSOR(S): SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON UTIL RESTRUCTURING
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
4/09/99 702 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
4/09/99 702 (H) URS, L&C
4/14/99 (H) URS AT 8:00 AM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
4/14/99 (H) SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
4/16/99 (H) URS AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 120
4/16/99 (H) MOVED CSHB 183(URS) OUT OF COMMITTEE
4/16/99 (H) MINUTE(URS)
4/20/99 880 (H) URS RPT CS(URS) NT 6DP
4/20/99 880 (H) DP: PORTER, KOTT, COWDERY, HUDSON,
4/20/99 880 (H) GREEN, ROKEBERG
4/20/99 880 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DCED)
4/20/99 880 (H) REFERRED TO L&C
4/23/99 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
4/23/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD
4/23/99 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
4/26/99 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
PETE FELLMAN, Researcher
for Representative John Harris
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 110
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4859
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained changes in the Version I committee
substitute for HB 110 on behalf of the bill sponsor.
JANICE ADAIR, Director
Division of Environmental Health
Department of Environmental Conservation
555 Cordova Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 269-7644
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 110.
MARGARET CARR
3505 Woodland Park Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99517
Telephone: (907) 243-4234
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 110.
PETER TORKELSON, Researcher
for Representative Cowdery
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 204
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3879
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained proposed amendment to HB 167 on
behalf of the bill sponsor.
GALE KINCAID, Owner/Operator
Triad Sales Company, Incorporated
3200 Seward Highway, Number 203
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Telephone: (907) 277-5655
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 167.
MAC CAREY, President
Alaska Manufactured Housing Association;
President, Carey Homes, Incorporated
3317 Mountain View Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 272-5414
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 167.
BEN MARSH, Executive Secretary
Alaska Manufactured Housing Association
2550 Denali, Suite 1310
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Telephone: (907) 278-3615
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 167.
CATHERINE REARDON, Director
Division of Occupational Licensing
Department of Commerce and Economic Development
P.O. Box 110806
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0806
Telephone: (907) 465-2534
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 167.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COWDERY
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 204
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3879
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 167.
JIM BALDWIN, Assistant Attorney General
Governmental Affairs Section
Civil Division (Juneau)
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
Telephone: (907) 465-3600
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 183.
WALT WILCOX, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Bill Hudson
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 108
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-6820
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 183 as aide to the
House Special Committee on Utilities Restructuring, the bill
sponsor.
REED STOOPS, Lobbyist
of General Communications, Incorporated
240 Main Street, Number 600
Juneau, Alaska 99801
(907) 463-3223
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 183.
ERIC YOULD, Executive Director
Alaska Rural Electric Cooperative Association, Incorporated
211 Fourth Avenue
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 463-3636
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 183.
SAM COTTEN, Chairman and Commissioner
Alaska Public Utilities Commission
Department of Commerce and Economic Development
1016 West Sixth Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-1963
Telephone: (907) 276-6222
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 183.
JONATHON LACK, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Andrew Halcro
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 418
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4939
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 183.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 99-46, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN NORMAN ROKEBERG called the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:25 p.m. Members present
at the call to order were Representatives Rokeberg, Halcro,
Murkowski, Harris, Brice and Cissna. Representative Sanders
arrived at 4:09 p.m.
CONFIRMATION HEARINGS
Dental Board of Examiners
Number 0081
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced that the committee would consider Dr.
Kenneth L. Crooks for the Board of Dental Examiners. Chairman
Rokeberg noted that Dr. Crooks has been a licensee in Alaska since
1980. Dr. Crooks is a reappointment.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO moved to forward the name of Dr. Kenneth L.
Crooks for the Board of Dental Examiners. There being no
objection, it was so ordered.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG explained that the signing of transmittal letters
by individual members did not reflect an intent by any member to
vote for or against an individual during any further sessions for
the purpose of confirmation.
Real Estate Commission
Number 0167
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced that the committee would consider Linda
L. Freed, a Kodiak resident, for the Real Estate Commission.
Chairman Rokeberg noted that he is acquainted with Ms. Freed who is
the public member on the commission. He commented that Ms. Freed
is well-respected by the commission and has done a fine job.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO moved to forward the name of Linda L. Freed
for the Real Estate Commission. There being no objection, it was
so ordered.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced that the committee would next consider
Larry Spencer, a Juneau resident, for the Real Estate Commission.
Chairman Rokeberg reminded the committee that Mr. Spencer testified
before the committee this year. Chairman Rokeberg noted that Mr.
Spencer is a well-known and well-respected businessman in the
Juneau community and the real estate community throughout the
state.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG moved to forward the name of Larry Spencer for
the Real Estate Commission. There being no objection, it was so
ordered.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced that the committee would next consider
Eleanor F. Oakley, a Palmer resident, for the Real Estate
Commission. Chairman Rokeberg noted that Ms. Oakley is also an
reappointee and served the commission well in the past.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO moved to forward the name of Eleanor F.
Oakley for the Real Estate Commission. There being no objection,
it was so ordered.
Number 0299
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG called a brief at-ease at 3:30 p.m. The
committee came back to order at 3:31 p.m.
SB 50 am - BOILER AND PRESSURE VESSEL INSPECTIONS
Number 0307
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee's next order of business
is SB 50 am, "An Act relating to certain boiler and pressure vessel
inspections and inspectors; and providing for an effective date."
The chairman informed the committee that he had attended meetings
subsequent to the previous committee hearing on SB 50 [April 21,
1999]. It was decided that his suggestion to refine the scope of
the plumbing inspectors to make them more available and involve the
municipalities would require further work. Noting the time
required to move legislation, the chairman indicated the
legislation before the committee does provide for certification of
additional inspectors within the department which will hopefully be
a step forward in addressing the backlog and safety issue before
the state. Chairman Rokeberg announced he would not make any
amendments, as he had originally planned, to SB 50 am and requested
that the bill be moved out of committee.
Number 0366
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO made a motion to move SB 50 am out of
committee with individual recommendations and the attached zero
fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI questioned where the legislation goes
next.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG answered that SB 50 am goes to the House floor.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE commented that this is a change in revenue
source and therefore it is technically a zero fiscal note.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG informed the committee he was pleased with the
response he received from the department [Department of Labor] but
the department believed that moving in the direction and scope the
chairman desired would slow the legislation's progress. Chairman
Rokeberg reiterated that he would like to move the legislation on
its way. There being no objection, SB 50 am moved out of the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
Number 0452
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG called an at-ease at 3:33 p.m. The committee
came back to order in less than a minute.
HB 110 - SALE/LABELING OF MEAT/MILK PRODUCTS
Number 0456
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee's next order of business
is HB 110, "An Act relating to the sale, offer to sell, and
labeling of fluid milk, meat, and meat products."
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS, the bill sponsor, noted almost everything
controversial had been removed from the legislation, but there is
still something else.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned if the committee had a CS [committee
substitute] to adopt.
Number 0502
PETE FELLMAN, Researcher for Representative John Harris, Alaska
State Legislature, came forward. He confirmed that Version I is
the working version.
There was some discussion among the committee regarding the
location of the proposed committee substitute in the bill packets.
Number 0558
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO made a motion to adopt the Version I proposed
committee substitute (CS) for HB 110, labeled 1-LS0408\I,
Bannister, 4/20/99, as a working document. There being no
objection, it was so ordered.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Pete Fellman to explain the changes
reflected in Version I.
MR. FELLMAN explained that any references to the meat and milk
products were removed in order to reduce some of the confusion and
concerns. The concerns regarding the ten percent ownership and the
bottling company were also removed; therefore, the legislation will
now fall under existing statute regarding enforcement. No changes
were adopted as far as the labeling that refers to bST [bovine
somatotropin], rbST [recombinant bovine somatotropin], or rBGH
[recombinant bovine growth hormone].
Number 0635
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI questioned if the legislation contains
language recommend by the department [Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC)] regarding the disclaimer.
MR. FELLMAN replied that the language does not include a
disclaimer. He explained that after a lot of research it was
determined that if the disclaimer language was included, it would
actually be considered mislabeling. Current information indicates
that there is a difference in milk that comes from cows injected
with bST. Mr. Fellman stated, "The disclaimer says that there is
no difference in milk, when, in fact, that was written in 1993.
... Since then, the technology has grown and has changed, so now
they can indeed test milk and indicate that there is a difference.
The difference itself is not the bST. The difference, itself, is
the IGF-1 [insulin-like growth factor 1], ... and they can test for
that."
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE wondered if IGF-1 was a hormone, and asked how
a hormone was made.
Number 0719
MR. FELLMAN explained that when a cow is given rBGH, the levels of
IGF-1 the cow synthesizes increase. The difference in levels of
IGF-1 between cows that have not been given bST and those that have
been given bST can be measured.
MR. FELLMAN referred to research by Samuel S. Epstein [Samuel S.
Epstein, MD, Professor of Environmental Medicine, University of
Illinois School of Public Health; Chairman, Cancer Prevention
Coalition] included in the bill packet. Mr. Epstein has shown that
can be proven.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS commented, "I know you brought along some
samples of what other states have allowed. ... I know one of the
concerns of the department at the last hearing was that, what
Representative Murkowski just said, that there wasn't enough
disclaimer in there. ... Other states, it seems like, have-how
many states were there? 26?"
Number 0794
MR. FELLMAN replied that there are 26 states. He has also included
in the bill packet a list of all the companies processing milk
today, some of which do not use any disclaimers. Mr. Fellman
indicated he found two examples of labeled milk products at the
grocery store here in Juneau. These two companies do not use any
disclaimers at all, but simply label their milk "hormone free" or
"no hormones used."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked that the record show Mr. Fellman provided
visual aids [Organic Valley half-and-half, Wisconsin; Horizon
Organic yogurt, Boulder, Colorado]. He commented the competitors
are already sending these products into the state, asking if that
is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE agreed; the companies are claiming that their
products are organic.
Number 0840
MR. FELLMAN indicated the labeling is "no hormones used." Under
the 1993 federal guidelines they would not be able to do that. The
other thing Mr. Fellman noted is that these are just guidelines.
Referring to page 2 of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA),
Department of Health and Human Services, handout included in the
bill packet, Mr. Fellman indicated the FDA has given itself some
real leeway. The guideline is not a law; it's a recommendation for
the states. Some leeway has also been left in this so that the
agency cannot be held accountable as technology or things change.
Mr. Fellman referred the language at the bottom of the FDA's Docket
No. 94D-0025, "Interim Guidance on the Voluntary Labeling of Milk
and Milk Products From Cows That Have Not Been Treated With
Recombinant Bovine Somatotropin". [The paragraph Mr. Fellman
referred to on page 2 of this document read:
The guidance presented here reflects FDA's interpretation
of the act and may be relevant to States' interpretation
of their own similar statutes. This document does not
bind FDA or an State, and it does not create or confer
any rights, privileges, benefits, or immunities for or on
any persons. Furthermore, this document reflects FDA's
current views on this matter. This document reflects
FDA's current views on this matter. FDA may reconsider
its position at a later date in light of any comments it
receives on this guidance document.]
MR. FELLMAN explained this is why FDA has not come out against
these individual companies that are labeling milk "no hormones
used." He confirmed for Representative Harris that this is the
information from the FDA. The other information they have was
submitted by DEC and was derived from this 1993 FDA guideline.
Number 0941
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked if Mr. Fellman had received any other
information.
MR. FELLMAN answered in negative. He indicated he had been unable
to contact the FDA by telephone.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said, "Looking at that label, they say just
plain and flatly 'no hormones used.'"
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted the label on the Organic Valley
half-and-half from Wisconsin says "No antibiotics or hormones ever
used."
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE wondered if the ability to say "not treated
with rBGH" is being established into statute.
MR. FELLMAN affirmed that.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE questioned if it would be better to say "no
hormones ever used" or "we're not using rBGH". He thinks the
second language might make other people wonder what other hormones
might be used.
MR. FELLMAN agreed. The first bill submitted, which Mr. Fellman
said was a good bill, where it simply said "no hormones used."
However, in an attempt to clarify things, they had focused on that
specific hormone. That is the specific hormone FDA has laid out in
its guidelines.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked if he could use the cream in his coffee.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated that he would defer to the state of
Wisconsin who seems to have a vested interest in dairy products.
He indicated Wisconsin's labeling appears to be the least
comprehensive and, he would think, most beneficial to the state's
dairy farmers.
Number 1058
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI noted she has not had a chance to read Dr.
Epstein's very current, March 22, report. Representative Murkowski
referred to discussion with the department [DEC] at the previous
hearing, where the department indicated the disclaimer should be
included. She wondered if Dr. Epstein's research is something they
should be relying on as statutes are being crafted if it is just
one scientist's opinion. Representative Murkowski questioned what
harm it does to say the scientific evidence is not clear. She
mentioned discussion on the House floor on April 23 and 26, where
the legislature chose to disagree with a certain study published in
a certain journal.
Number 1148
MR. FELLMAN directed Representative Murkowski to the references
that Mr. Epstein has cited. He pointed out that Mr. Epstein has
cited many concerns dating as far back as 1982 and from many
different sources of research. Mr. Fellman indicated the problem
with including the disclaimer is that it is not true; it can be
proven that there is a difference between cows treated with the
hormone and those that are not. Another issue revolves around
advertising. The more words used, the less effective the
advertisement. Mr. Fellman stated that an advertisement such as
"note: this is from cows not treated with bST or rBGH" is simple,
clear and does falls within the federal guidelines.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI noted that although the FDA is not
necessarily the final word on any of this, she mentioned Dr.
Epstein's mention that "the FDA has ignored such evidence reported
by the author in peer review scientific publications over the last
decade." This makes her wonder what is going on between Dr.
Epstein and the FDA. However, she pointed to what she terms a very
strange statement, "It should be further emphasized that senior FDA
officials and industry consultants are members of Codex, which
meets in secrecy and relies on unpublished industry assurances of
safety." Representative Murkowski indicated it sounds like Dr.
Epstein is trying to establish some kind of a conspiracy here. She
commented she is not asking the questions to be obstreperous, she
indicated she just wants to make sure "we don't get ourselves
sideways on this because we have taken one individual's study and
said, 'By God, times have changed and Epstein is right.'" It is
her understanding that FDA has not signed off on Dr. Epstein's
studies.
Number 1330
MR. FELLMAN reiterated that Mr. Epstein's study is a composite of
many different studies. He pointed out that rBGH has not been
approved in Canada, France, Italy, Ireland, Great Britain, The
Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Austria, et cetera.
He wondered, if one man [Mr. Epstein] has it out for the FDA, why
then do all these other countries have a concern with rBGH and
IGF-1.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS said it seemed to him that the department
wanted to include language which said that it has not been proven,
similar to the way that tobacco manufacturers have on their surgeon
general's warning indicating that smoking has been proven to be
harmful. He believes that this has been stripped down to the point
where all that is left is a statement on these products that says
"milk in this product is not from cows treated with rBGH" or "milk
in this product is from cows not treated with rbST". He feels that
the statement is brought down to a very basic level and is not
misleading. It is his impression that the more language which is
included, the more confusing the statement can be.
Number 1429
JANICE ADAIR, Director, Division of Environmental Health,
Department of Environmental Conservation, came forward. She
indicated she had provided an e-mail message to Representative
Rokeberg from Robert Hennes. Mr. Hennes is from the FDA's Region
10 and does the Grade A milk review for the state of Alaska. Mr.
Hennes' e-mail read:
Janice:
After calling FDA's Division of Food Labeling, the
interim rbST milk labeling policy of 1994, a copy
previously provided to you, is still the guidance
provided by FDA.
Without the qualifying statement, i.e. "No significant
difference has been shown between milk derived from
rbST-treated and non-rbST-treated cows". it [It] may
imply that milk from untreated cows is safer or of higher
quality than milk from treated cows. Such an implication
would provide labeling that would be determined to be
false and misleading. Therefore, without the qualifying
statement, FDA would determine the labeling to be false
and the milk product to be misbranded.
If you have any further questions or concerns, please
feel free to contact me.
MS. ADAIR stated it is her concern that milk producers in Alaska
who label their product without this qualifying statement would be
precluded from selling their milk to the military or to schools
using federal dollars to buy the milk because FDA would determine
the milk to be misbranded. She commented, "We are precluded in
this bill from requiring any additional language, and if that's
necessary to keep the markets open for the milk, my concern is that
we're kind of cutting them off at the pass. The military and
schools represent two of the biggest customers for the two dairy
processors in Alaska. If FDA, until they change their policy,
which, as was noted, it is a policy, it's not a regulation, but
FDA is terrible about regulating through guidance. They do this to
us all the time. If this is what they want to see on it, if it's
not on it, then ... federal money can't be used to buy the milk.
And that's our concern."
Number 1547
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI referred to page 3, the end of line 1 to
line 3, of Version I, "Milk products offered for wholesale or
retail sale in this state are not required to contain any further
label information related to the use of rBGH or rBST in milk
products." Representative Murkowski suggested eliminating the
entire sentence so that any Alaskan producer that wanted to sell to
the military or to the schools could use the disclaimer language;
this would get them past the FDA issue. She indicated other
farmers or producers could chose to either use or not use the FDA
language.
MS. ADAIR agreed that would be the easiest fix.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked Representative Harris if there is a
penalty for a milk producer whose products are found to contain
hormones.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS answered in the negative, adding, "It's a
misdemeanor class, whatever, it falls along under this. It doesn't
state it in here, but it states it in other statutes it falls
under."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG inquired, "So, within the Chapter, there's a
misdemeanor (indisc.) if there's non-compliance?"
MS. ADAIR stated that there is in existing statute.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if the department verifies this.
MS. ADAIR answered yes.
Number 1636
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked what happens if there is a naturally
occurring trace of a hormone found and the milk producer or farmer
does not know about it.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS believed there would be a penalty. He
indicated he thought the dairy farmer or producer would have to be
very, very sure that they don't have that before signing the
affidavit. Representative Harris further indicated he did not
think there would be a problem with the restriction on sales to the
federal government the department had mentioned; the producer or
farmer would chose to remove the labeling if they wished to do
this. He noted the labeling is not mandatory. If someone wishes
to label in this manner, these are the certain guidelines to follow
and that someone cannot falsely advertise. He indicated he thought
a prudent business person would make the decision that is best
business-wise.
Number 1733
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if Ms. Adair would prefer to see the
sentence Representative Murkowski referred to on page 3, Version I,
deleted.
MS. ADAIR answered in the affirmative.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented that that makes it entirely
discretionary on the part of the milk producer.
MS. ADAIR stated, "And however the labeling requirements are
changed in the future, then we can adjust."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if that would give the department more
comfort with the bill.
MS. ADAIR answered in the affirmative.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS requested an at-ease.
Number 1758
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG called an at-ease from 3:57 p.m. The committee
came back to order at 4:01 p.m.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS requested that the legislation be held until
the next scheduled meeting.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee would hold the
legislation over at the sponsor's request. He indicated the
committee would proceed to the next bill.
Number 1776
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG called an at-ease at 4:02 p.m. The committee
came back to order at 4:03 p.m.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted he understands there is someone wishing to
testify on HB 110 from Anchorage via teleconference, Margaret Carr.
Number 1798
MARGARET CARR testified via teleconference from Anchorage in
support of HB 110. Ms. Carr noted she is representing herself.
She provided the following testimony:
"I am here to urge you to support HB 110. I think HB
110, allowing the labeling of dairy products free of
recombinant bovine growth hormone, ... will support my
right and the right of all consumers to know what goes
into those products we buy. There's still controversy
out there. I've done a bit of reading on recombinant
bovine growth hormone and I believe that there's still
unanswered questions about the effects of this synthetic
hormone on the health of cows and on [the] health of
people, and I think the least we can do is have the
choice to ... buy products that are free of rBGH. And I
think a simple statement on the product is simply
granting us the right to get that information. Thank
you."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed there were no questions for Ms. Carr.
The chairman indicated HB 110 would be held over.
HB 167 - REGULATION OF MOBILE HOME DEALERS
Number 1850
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee's next order of business
is HB 167, "An Act relating to mobile home dealers." The chairman
recognized the presence of Representative John Cowdery, the bill
sponsor, and indicated the intent is to first take testimony.
PETER TORKELSON, Researcher for Representative Cowdery, Alaska
State Legislature, came forward briefly and said he would be
available to answer questions as they arise.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG requested the testimony of Mr. Kincaid in
Anchorage, questioning what the gentlemen have decided.
Number 1887
GALE KINCAID, Owner/Operator, Triad Sales Company, Incorporated,
testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He informed the
committee there was meeting this morning which did not decide
anything. Mr. Kincaid requested the committee's support of HB 167.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted that Mr. Kincaid had sent the committee
notification that repealing the entire law or establishing a sunset
would be acceptable; he asked if that was correct.
MR. KINCAID said that was correct.
Number 1922
MAC CAREY, President, Alaska Manufactured Housing Association
(AMHA); President, Carey Homes, Incorporated, testified next via
teleconference from Anchorage. Mr. Carey suggested that there
might be some further study to determine if there might be
obstacles to competition with regards to the smaller dealerships.
A small dealership may have difficulties obtaining the bond at all.
Mr. Carey stated that the Alaska Manufactured Housing Association
has voted HB 167 down in light of consumer protection. If a real
estate agent does not have a warranty, but does have a bond, then
mobile home dealers should be bonded as well. Mr. Carey said that
a "yes" vote on HB 167 would leave consumers with no protection.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked if Mr. Carey of the association had
received any complaints regarding mobile home dealers in general or
requests for regulation. Normally, there is a consumer group
advocating regulatory oversight of an industry. Representative
Brice said that in his six years in the legislature, no
organization or constituents have requested oversight [of the
mobile home industry]. He questioned if they were hearing things.
MR. CAREY answered in the affirmative. The association has a
number of mobile home park managers who hear complaints monthly
when collecting space rent. The intent of the bill was to help
curb those complaints.
Number 2055
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI noted, then, that the complaints are not
necessarily directed at the dealer, but are being heard about
through the mobile home park managers. She asked what the specific
nature of the complaints might be.
MR. CAREY specified that the complaints range anywhere from fraud
to holding earnest money, titling and taxes. Taxes is a big
complaint.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked if those complaints are forwarded to
the Division of Occupational Licensing or whether those complaints
actually result in any action or claim against any of the dealers.
MR. CAREY commented on the small size of some of these dealers, the
person might just have a car with a sign on it, and the chances of
getting anything from these dealers would be very slight to begin
with. Mr. Carey added that some of the mobile home owners are not
very sophisticated and are accustomed to being "walked on."
However, Mr. Carey indicated he does not want that stigma on
people's dealings with his industry.
Number 2118
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG identified one of the main problems as the fact
that used dealers only do a small volume in relation to the cost of
the bond and the license. He asked if Mr. Carey would consider an
amendment which would exempt mobile home dealers that do a
specified volume of business.
MR. CAREY reiterated that he was willing to return to the
association to research the issue further in order to offer more
specifics. Mr. Carey felt that new and used dealerships should
have the same bonding but he was open-minded. He informed the
committee that AMHA, which is comprised of mobile home park
managers, owners, suppliers, and new and used dealerships, has 20
members who voted against HB 167. Therefore, Mr. Carey would have
to present Chairman Rokeberg's proposal to the association members.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG explained the legislative process is such that HB
167 has further committee referrals. This legislation would next
be heard in the House Finance Standing Committee. House Bill 167
must go through the House Rules Standing Committee and then to the
House floor before being forwarded to the Senate. He pointed out
that Mr. Carey could certainly appeal to the bill sponsor regarding
any further adjustments he (Mr. Carey) would deem necessary. The
chairman suggested that Mr. Carey continue working on this issue to
attempt to arrive at an industry consensus.
Number 2221
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked how many of the association's
members are dealers.
MR. CAREY believed that there are five or six dealers in the
association.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO noted the question had been why didn't people
go to the proper authorities and complain about fraud.
Representative Halcro noted Mr. Carey had replied that some of
these used dealers are "fly-by-night guys" who drive around with a
sign on their car. He requested that Mr. Carey elaborate on that
comment.
MR. CAREY noted he was not sure he had used the word
"fly-by-night." He indicated that such dealers would not have much
to lose. Mr. Carey said, "In other words, if I was to go ahead --
if I bought a $20,000 ... or a $80,000 home from them and I went to
go ahead and sue them; what am I going to get? With the $50,000
bond, there's something to go after; otherwise, chances are their
assets may be very little." Mr. Carey emphasized that he is not
merely concerned with the mobile home dealers today, he is also
concerned with what will happen in the future. Currently,
manufactured housing comprises 30 percent of all new [housing]
permits in the Lower 48. Therefore, Mr. Carey would suspect that
the manufactured housing industry would blossom in Alaska as well.
Therefore, today's new home would be tomorrow's used home.
Number 2297
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked if the manner in which the smaller
dealers operate has some kind of negative spin-off on others in the
industry.
MR. CAREY answered in the negative. He clarified that the size of
the dealership is not important, mentioning George Reed who
testified at the previous hearing [April 23] as an example of an
very reputable small dealer. He emphasized he would not want to
hamper any small business. Mr Carey did not like HB 167 as it is
because it takes away the accountability from the agents for the
small and the large consumer. He emphasized the importance of
having some recourse for the consumer.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG requested that Mr. Carey inform the committee of
the consumer protection provided before HB 436 [Nineteenth
Legislature].
MR. CAREY explained that the DMV [Department of Motor Vehicles] had
a $10,000 bond in order to go into business. That $10,000 bond was
not reinstated when the dealer went out of business. The
manufactured and mobile home industry did determine that there
should be a bond and that a $50,000 is not all that much. Upon
discussions with George Reed this morning, Mr. Carey stated, "Maybe
there is some room, if a guy can't spend $2,000 a year and trust me
$2,000 a year to go into this business is not much; $2,000 a year
to get his bonds, but his financial make-up may not be substantial
enough to get that bond. Maybe we should reevaluate that."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if Mr. Carey's testimony was that there is
no longer any DMV bond which was the reason for the passage of the
statute in the first place.
MR. CAREY said that was correct.
Number 2453
BEN MARSH, Executive Secretary, Alaska Manufactured Housing
Association, testified next via teleconference from Anchorage. Mr.
Marsh stated, "I might just reiterate what Mr. Carey said and point
out that at our meeting this morning, ... we did not have any
meeting of the minds as to what would by the proper level of a
bond. Maybe [$]50,000 isn't the right figure. We wanted to talk
about that some more, maybe 25 [$25,000], maybe 15 [$15,000]..."
[TESTIMONY INTERRUPTED BY AUTOMATIC TAPE CHANGE]
TAPE 99-46, SIDE B
Number 0001
MR. MARSH continued, "...controls, you know don't know he doesn't
have to have a trust account, for example. He doesn't have to
segregate money that is put in his car for earnest money. He
doesn't have to check on what the taxes are owed on the unit that
he's selling. Maybe the buyer finds out about it through his
(indisc.) a little later." Mr. Marsh said that the volume of
complaints is unknown. Perhaps, there are not many complaints made
against the bond merely because there is a bond requirement. Mr.
Marsh said that something should be in place. No industry dealing
with the public without recourse should be allowed to proceed
totally unregulated.
Number 0059
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI noted that there is a fax, dated April 26,
1999, in the committee packet from Mr. Kincaid. That fax requests
continuing the hearing today and sunset HB 167. A second fax
signed by Mr. Marsh, states that the fax is from Mr. Kincaid, Mr.
Carey, Mr. Reed, and Mr. Marsh. The second fax requests that the
committee postpone action on HB 167.
MR. KINCAID clarified that he wanted the committee to pass HB 167
with a sunset as discussed last Friday, March 23, 1999. Therefore,
repealing the legislation. He said that his inclusion on the fax
requesting the postponement of HB 167 was an error.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if Mr. Kincaid believed it appropriate to
include an exemption regarding the level of sales per units per
year.
MR. KINCAID said that the volume of business is not the problem.
He explained that most used dealers cannot qualify to be bonded.
Mr. Kincaid believed that he was the only used dealer that is
licensed and bonded.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG closed the public testimony. He noted that the
committee should have an amendment proposed by the sponsor.
Number 0163
MR. TORKELSON explained, as the sponsor's representative, that
after last Friday's March 23 meeting, the language sunsetting HB
167 was drafted in case that was the will of the committee. Mr.
Torkelson said he understands that it is technically not possible
to sunset the current statutes because no board is involved.
Therefore, Mr. Torkelson interpreted that to mean repealing the
Section requiring current licensure and dealer structure.
Number 0190
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG called an at-ease from 4:25 p.m. The committee
came back to order at 4:26 p.m.
Number 0196
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted that this a complete repealer. He asked if
there should be an effective date.
MR. TORKELSON said that point was discussed with the Division of
Occupational Licensing. Many of the licenses are for a two-year
period and many would expire August 31, 1999. He explained that
should HB 167 pass this year, the default 90-day effective clause
would make this bill effective around August 20, 1999, to August
30, 1999, depending upon when the bill would be signed by the
Governor. The language was eliminated in order to leave it open to
the committee or to utilize the default.
Number 0238
CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing,
Department of Commerce and Economic Development came forward. She
noted that the division administers this program. In response to
the chairman's question, Ms. Reardon said that she believed if the
intent is to repeal this law, it would be best to do so before
August 31, 1999, so no one would have to spend $500 [for the
licensing fee]. She asked, in terms of ending the program, if the
desire would be to have all the bonds run out August 31, 1999, or
if it would be the desire hold onto the bonds in order to cover
fraudulent acts that may have occurred this spring.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented that would be an area for the sponsor
to determine. If some already do not have the bonds, the chairman
indicated it would be appropriate to refund the amount of the
premium to the others when the program is repealed. He remembered
Ms. Reardon's testimony to be that if HB 167 passed, the number of
licensees would be diminished to the point that it would be
appropriate to end the program.
MS. REARDON agreed that continues to be her position.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG requested that the amendment be offered as a
conceptual amendment in order to provide the drafter with the
ability to make necessary corrections and conforming language.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said that he believed the drafter will request
the bonding issue to be addressed. He asked if the intent is to
have immediate return of the bonds.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG answered in the affirmative. Therefore, an
effective date would be appropriate.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE indicated the other option of requiring the
bonds be returned when the program is terminated.
Number 0354
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO expressed concern regarding an individual who
purchased a mobile home two or three weeks before the program is
terminated. She asked what recourse that individual would have.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said there would be no recourse. That is the
public policy issue being faced.
MS. REARDON pointed out that this may be a weakness in the initial
law. Other laws that hold bonds or certificate of deposit were
directed in the law to keep the bond for three years past the last
license date in order to allow folks to move through the courts.
Ms. Reardon was not certain that there is a way to prevent someone
who chooses not to renew their license or bond on August 31, 1999,
and leaves town under the current law. Perhaps, that could be
corrected at this time.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COWDERY, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of
HB 167, commented that such issues could be addressed in the next
committee of referral, the House Finance Standing Committee. He
said he would like the legislation to move forward if possible.
Number 0410
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE suggested that the amendment be offered as
written with a note attached requesting the bonding be addressed in
the House Finance Standing Committee.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated that another route could be the
following. He said, "Or do we want to do a conceptual amendment
and attach it to this regarding the bonding? Then you can have a
CS [committee substitute] ... it can save those guys some time."
He questioned the committee's wishes regarding the bonding which
could be terminated as of August 31, 1999, or July 1, 1999.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE recommended the bonding be terminated as of
the effective date of HB 167.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked then if Representative Brice wished to have
a conceptual amendment to the amendment which would terminate the
bonding on the effective date.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE agreed.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG clarified that would make the default the
effective date.
Number 0482
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO moved that the committee adopt Amendment 1.
Amendment 1, an unlabeled printed amendment, read:
Page 1, Line 1
Delete all material
Insert: "An act repealing the registration requirement
for mobile home dealers."
Page 1, Lines 3-7
Delete all material
Insert: "Section 1. AS 08.67.010 - AS 08.67.080 is
repealed."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted that there is a conceptual amendment to
Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE explained, "That the amendment to Amendment 1
would state that the bonding requirements under this title would
end and the bonds would be returned upon the effective date of HB
167."
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI indicated the need to add language
regarding the fact that the bond would not be released if there is
a claim pending against the bond.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE agreed and indicated the amendment to
Amendment 1 would include Representative Murkowski's suggestion.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked if the testimony indicated that those
14 licensed and bonded dealers do not care that they are not
bonded.
Number 0539
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said that the testimony was that 10 of those
dealers did not want bonding.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA said that she did not interpret the testimony
that way.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY agreed with Chairman Rokeberg's
understanding of the testimony.
Number 0562
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there are any objections to the
amendment to Amendment 1 which reads as follows: "Bond
requirements under this title would end and returned upon the
effective date of HB 167 unless there is a claim pending against
the bond." There being no objection, the amendment to Amendment 1
was adopted.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there were any objections to Amendment
1 as amended. There being no objection, Amendment 1 as amended was
adopted.
Number 0590
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO made a motion to move HB 167, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
zero fiscal note.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG objected to comment. He announced for those on
the teleconference that this would just be the beginning of their
fight. The chairman suggested that the teleconference participants
continue the discussions with other members of the industry to
attempt to attain consensus. He explained that what has been done
is repeal the entire chapter.
There being no further objection, CSHB 167(L&C) moved out of the
House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
Number 0647
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG called a brief at-ease at 4:37 p.m. The
committee came back to order at 4:39 p.m.
CSSB 51(L&C) - LICENSING OF COSMETOLOGISTS
Number 0651
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee's next order of business
is CSSB 51(L&C), "An Act relating to barbers, hairdressers,
manicurists, and cosmetologists; providing that the only
qualification necessary for licensure as a manicurist, other than
payment of fees, is completion of a class that is 12 hours in
duration, addresses relevant health, safety, and hygiene concerns,
and is offered through a school approved by the Board of Barbers
and Hairdressers; and providing for an effective date." The
chairman requested that Representative Brice provide the
subcommittee report on SB 51 [subcommittee: Representatives Brice
(chair), Murkowski and Cissna].
Number 0674
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE moved to adopt the proposed Version K House
committee substitute (CS) for CSSB 51(L&C) as the working document
before the committee. Version K was labeled 1-LS0378\K,
Lauterbach, 4/21/99.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there were any objections. There being
none, Version K was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said the subcommittee looked at a number of
issues, primarily some of the concerns raised by the chairman
relating to competency testing and postsecondary education loans.
In Sections 3 and 6 of Version K, the subcommittee addressed the
question of testing for the course. It has been clarified that a
test can be administered by the school, not the state, to show
completion of the 12-hour course. In Section 10, some superfluous
language relating to credential investigation fees was deleted. No
one charges or administers credential investigation fees so that
was removed from the legislation. Additionally, an Alaska-licensed
hairdresser does manicure work as part of that hairdresser's
license, sometimes in the range of 200 to 300 hours, and is tested
for competency in that area as part of state regulation. The
subcommittee thought it was a bit redundant to require these people
who have gone above and beyond the provisions of the 12-hour
manicurist's course to go back and obtain a manicurist's license
after receiving the hairdresser's license.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed from Representative Brice that is
already in the requirements for hairdressers. The chairman
questioned how many hours are included within the hairdresser's
[license].
Number 0796
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE answered that some schools are from 200 to 300
hours, here in Alaska. In order to receive a hairdresser's
license, an individual must successfully complete 15 [manicure]
applications. This is a standard established in regulation.
Therefore, Representative Brice noted, the Board of Barbers and
Hairdressers has recognized through the hairdresser requirements
and regulations the importance of manicurists and ensuring that
they are adequately trained. Representative Brice indicated
Section 13 clarifies that the 12-hour basic health, safety and
hygiene course should be geared toward the concerns of the
manicurist as well as the customer because the manicurist is the
one exposed to the chemicals and the dust. He indicated the dust
can cause "white lung." Additionally, the subcommittee attempted
to clarify in Version K that the manicurist's license does not show
competency, it only shows course completion in health, hygiene, and
safety issues. Representative Brice emphasized it was a big
concern not to provide a statement that an individual has shown or
passed any competency requirements to practice manicuring. The
license should say the individual has completed a 12-hour course on
health, safety, and hygiene for both the manicurist and the
customer.
Number 0905
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed the hairdressers are the only ones
exempted from the 12-hour course. He further confirmed that anyone
else currently practicing manicuring is required to take the
12-hour course. The chairman confirmed from Representative Brice
that was one of the Senate's intention and is a positive note in
terms of the transition. Chairman Rokeberg questioned if the
hairdressers are grandfathered in for the 12 hours of health
training.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE answered in the affirmative; hairdressers are
grandfathered in for the 12 hours because that training takes place
within the core curriculum of hairdressing. However, no one else
is exempted. Representative Brice indicated state licensure,
showing that a person has successfully completed a course in
health, safety and hygiene concerns, will be required for the
practice of manicure. He further indicated the penalty in Version
K for failure to complete the 12-hour course and obtain licensure
is a violation enforceable by the Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC). Representative Brice noted the quality of the
12-hour course was not addressed by the subcommittee. That is the
core policy argument the chairman is currently aware of: Is it
possible to teach health, safety, and hygiene concerns as they
relate to manicure in 12 hours? The subcommittee did not arrive at
a consensus on this point. Representative Brice said his feeling
is anything less than 50 or 60 hours is "pretty much just blowing
in the wind." He recognized the sponsor's desire to keep the
length of time to a bare minimum, which resulted in the 12 hours.
However, the course still does not address application or more than
12 hours worth of the importance of health, safety, and hygiene
concerns. That is the one major outstanding issue.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE indicated the subcommittee had spoken with
Diane Barrans, Executive Director, Alaska Commission on
Postsecondary Education (ACPE), Department of Education ["student
loans"]. Ms. Barrans had informed the subcommittee that the
minimum length of a program to meet eligibility requirements for a
student loan is generally six weeks. Therefore, this program would
not be eligible for student loans. Representative Brice explained
he believes some of the reasons the subcommittee did not address
competency and the length of the course were because the
legislation's title is fairly strictly written. [CSSB 51(L&C),
"... providing that the only qualification necessary for licensure
as a manicurist, other than payment of fees, is completion of a
class that is 12 hours in duration, addresses relevant health,
safety, and hygiene concerns, and is offered through a school
approved by the Board of Barbers and Hairdressers ...."].
Representative Brice said that he did not necessarily want to come
back with a recommendation which would create title problems
although he believes, as a full committee, they do want to address
that.
Number 1073
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG thanked the subcommittee for its work and
confirmed the committee had no questions. The chairman commented
he has been in communication with the bill sponsor, Representative
Brice and other interested parties. Chairman Rokeberg said, "It
appears that the requirements of less than six weeks and there's
some timing there, we thought about coming up with something that
-- there is a 30-hour weekly course minimum, so if we can get 30
hours in that'd be a full week. So, it looks like we're thinking
of something less than 180 hours to meet the statute." He informed
everyone work would be done with the sponsor in order to reach an
agreement on a title change and increase the [course] hours while
keeping the hours below the threshold allowing a student loan. The
chairman noted he thinks that is the sponsor's primary objective.
With that, Chairman Rokeberg indicated the committee would hold
CSSB 51(L&C) over in order to allow the Senate to review the
suggested changes.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO questioned if the intent is to make the
program qualify for the student loan program.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG answered in the negative. He indicated the
intent is to increase the minimum requirements for licensure,
mentioning the possible need for a grandfathering provision.
Number 1165
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE informed the committee some of the comments he
received from people in Fairbanks were for a 30-hour application
and a 30-hour classroom program, for a total of 60 hours of
training, as a bare minimum. Others discussed a program of up to
100 hours. Representative Brice noted that in review of other
state statistics, up to 500 hours are required for this area.
There are some serious associated health risks.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked if that was only referring to
manicurists.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE answered in the affirmative. He indicated 300
hours is required for a nail technician in Alabama, 350 hours for
a nail technician in Arizona, and 240 hours for a nail specialist
in Florida.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted that would be the intention, to come to
some agreement with the Senate. The chairman identified the
following issues to be addressed: determining the level at which
existing businesses doing manicuring can continue, and increasing
the hours of the course which would require a title change in the
legislation. Chairman Rokeberg restated that SB 51 would be held.
HB 183 - ALASKA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
[Contains discussion relevant to SB 133.]
Number 1252
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced that the committee's next order of
business is HB 183, "An Act relating to the powers and duties of
the chair of the Alaska Public Utilities Commission; relating to
membership on the Alaska Public Utilities Commission; and relating
to the annual report of the Alaska Public Utilities Commission."
The chairman indicated communications had been made with the other
body since HB 183's April 23 hearing with Mr. Wilcox's
presentation of the House Special Committee on Utility
Restructuring's committee substitute for HB 183, CSHB 183(URS)
[Walt Wilcox, aide to the House Special Committee on Utility
Restructuring]. Chairman Rokeberg noted the committee has several
amendments suggested by various parties and that Representative
Halcro has provided an additional amendment. The chairman
indicated his intention to take up the amendments and bring forth
a committee substitute (CS) for examination, noting HB 183 has no
further committees of referral. Chairman Rokeberg noted this would
also allow the committee to have a better feel for what is
happening in the other body regarding legislation that could be
along the same lines.
Number 1355
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI noted she had a question at the conclusion
of the previous week's hearing [April 23] about the removal process
[of a commissioner by the governor]. Mr. Baldwin had indicated he
would be available at this hearing for testimony. Representative
Murkowski indicated the removal process is in Section 2 of CSHB
183(URS). [CSHB 183(URS), Section 2 read:
* Sec. 2. AS 42.05.035 is repealed and reenacted to
read:
Sec. 42.05.035. Removal of commissioners. The
governor may remove a commissioner from office only for
inefficiency, neglect of duty, or misconduct in office,
or because the member, while serving on the commission,
is convicted of a misdemeanor for violating a statute or
regulation related to public utilities or is convicted of
a felony. The governor shall deliver to the commissioner
a copy of the charges against the commissioner. The
commissioner shall have an opportunity to present a
defense in person or through counsel at a public hearing
before the governor or the governor's designee. The
commissioner shall be informed of the hearing by
registered mail at least 10 days before the hearing date.
At the hearing, the commissioner may confront and
cross-examine adverse witnesses. Upon removal of the
commissioner, the findings and a complete statement of
all charges made against the commissioner shall be filed
in the Office of the Lieutenant Governor.]
Number 1384
JIM BALDWIN, Assistant Attorney General, Governmental Affairs
Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law came forward.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked her question, noting it had been
more of a general question. In Section 2, she thinks there is a
very vague wording and reviewed the language relating the
commissioner's defense. She requested an explanation of how this
public process is envisioned, asking what one would have to go
through in order to remove a commissioner under this CS.
MR. BALDWIN responded that this language is similar to the language
in AS 16.05.280, applying to the Board of Fisheries and the Board
of Game, and is also fairly similar to the language in AS
31.05.007[(d)] applying to the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation
Commission (AOGCC). [AS 16.05.280 read:
Sec. 16.05.280. Removal of board members. The
governor may only remove a board member for inefficiency,
neglect of duty, or misconduct in office, or because the
member while serving on the board is convicted of a
misdemeanor for violating a statute or regulation related
to fish or game or of a felony, and shall do so by
delivering to the member a written copy of the charges
and giving the member an opportunity to be heard in
person or through counsel at a public hearing before the
governor or a designee upon at least 10 days' notice by
registered mail. The member may confront and
cross-examine adverse witnesses. Upon removal, the
governor or a designee shall file in the proper state
office the findings and a complete statement of all
charges made against the member.]
[AS 31.05.007(d) read:
Sec. 31.05.007. Term of office; vacancy; removal.
(d) The governor may remove a commissioner from office for
cause including but not limited to incompetence, neglect of duty or
misconduct in office. A commissioner, to be removed for cause,
shall be given a copy of the charges and afforded an opportunity to
be publicly heard in person or by counsel in the commissioner's own
defense upon not less than 10 days' notice. If a commissioner is
removed for cause, the governor shall file with the lieutenant
governor a complete statement of all charges made against the
commissioner and the governor's finding based on the charges,
together with a complete record of the proceedings.]
MR. BALDWIN noted that because the officer has a property interest
in the office, in this case a salary is involved, due process has
to be accorded for removal. Normally the governor would appoint a
qualified hearing officer who is usually legally trained, although
legal training is not necessary. Mr. Baldwin explained that the
process is one in which there is a basic right to confront
witnesses that have been brought forward in support of the grounds
for removal. The officer who is charged or is defending his/her
title to the office has a right to examine and put in evidence
before the hearing officer. The hearing officer creates a record
and makes a recommendation to the governor. The governor makes the
ultimate decision, and, hopefully, the record supports that
decision.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI noted, then, that the governor is the
final decision-maker.
MR. BALDWIN replied that he believes that is what is intended; it
is a recommended decision which goes to the governor.
Number 1535
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI understands, from her reading of one of
the reports, that the [Alaska Public Utilities Commission (APUC)]
chairman receives the same salary as the other commissioners. She
asked if this is correct.
MR. BALDWIN believed that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI indicated she assumes that the chair would
be paid somewhat more if he/she is being given truly broadened
powers or authorities as outlined in CSHB 183(URS).
MR. BALDWIN replied he does not know the answer to that. He does
not know what the thought would be in that area.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI noted that concluded her questions.
Number 1610
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said to Mr. Baldwin that he is concerned with one
of the amendments, marked H.3, regarding consumer complaints. The
chairman asked if Mr. Baldwin saw any problems with this amendment
or cared to comment on it. [Amendment H.3, labeled 1-LS0764\H.3,
Cramer, 4/21/99, read:
Page 1, line 5, following ";":
Insert "relating to provisions for the resolution of
consumer complaints;"
Page 3, following line 19:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 7. AS 42.05 is amended by adding a new
section to read:
Sec. 42.05.165. Consumer complaints. The
commission shall by regulation provide for
(1) the expedited hearing and resolution
of consumer complaints; and
(2) penalties against a party to a
complaint who causes unjustified delays in a
consumer complaint proceeding."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.]
MR. BALDWIN indicated that there may be some constraints regarding
can be done by regulation as far as prescribing penalties. If the
intention is to impose a criminal-type penalty, he is not so sure
there is the power to do that by regulation.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated these are sanctions he is contemplating
because it would be for delaying or other tactics.
MR. BALDWIN added, "Something within - within the, not - not some
criminal (indisc.)."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG mentioned it is common to file for extensions as
a legal delaying tactic. He said those are the types of things to
be avoided.
Number 1749
MR. BALDWIN noted the only comment he would have offhand is that
there is only so much that can be done by regulation, if that is
the thinking. Mr. Baldwin indicated he did not see anything with
the rest of it, but would be happy to consult with his colleagues
who work with the commission every day.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG reiterated the intention is see whether to adopt
some of these amendments at this hearing and bring forward another
CS. The chairman indicated he would be interested in Mr. Baldwin's
comments at the next hearing [April 28] on any of the items the
committee might adopt. The chairman indicated this would also be
forwarded to the APUC and other interested parties.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI, returning to the public hearing process,
questioned that there is nothing in the current language that would
put any kind of a time frame on it. Mentioning due process,
expediency, et cetera, she asked if it would be Mr. Baldwin's
suggestion that there be any kind of a time frame within which the
which the charges go to the governor and a hearing be appointed.
Number 1853
MR. BALDWIN replied that one of the things that always bothers him
about these kinds of hearings is that they always turn into
trial-type proceedings. Although the initial idea is that it will
be a simple administrative hearing, it always turns into something
else. Mr. Baldwin expressed that it is probably good there is the
latitude for that when warranted by a particular case. It can turn
into a full trial-type proceeding. He indicated the language in
CSHB 183(URS) leaves this pretty open-ended: There is a notice
period and it is a fairly quick time for the public officer to have
to respond. Mr. Baldwin indicated, however, in the one other
incident he has had experience with, there was a very involved
factual proceeding and in order to accord the appropriate due
process, "things just sort of had to run their course." While
attempting to specify deadlines to compress the proceedings might
be desirable from a management standpoint, this may not meet the
actual needs of the situation. In other words, the hearing officer
may have to be developing theories for why these statutory
deadlines need to be extended. Therefore, it might not be wise to
stipulate those deadlines. Once there is a hearing officer "on
scene" who can assess the facts of the case, that person normally
proscribes an order for proceeding and that order is followed. He
recommended not being too specific.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI noted discussion at the previous hearing
of "inefficiency" and asked if Mr. Baldwin could speak to that.
Number 1980
MR. BALDWIN indicated he had done some research regarding this and
suggested the committee might want to pick up the language in AS
31.05.007 [relating to the AOGCC], "The governor may remove a
commissioner from office for cause including ...". Mr. Baldwin
explained this language is very close to the language in CSHB
183(URS), but he noted "cause" is a legal concept which connotes
some basic problem and not just mere inefficiency. Mr. Baldwin
indicated the current language in CSHB 183(URS) is based on AS
16.05.280 [Boards of Fisheries and Game] which does not contain the
lead-in language about "for cause, including ...".
Number 2058
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI commented she reads the language in CSHB
183(URS) as "removed 'only' for inefficiency, neglect of duty,
misconduct, or because ...". Representative Murkowski noted Mr.
Baldwin is suggesting "including" language. This perhaps is more
appropriate than the narrower "only" language.
MR. BALDWIN indicated he prefers the AOGCC language, AS
31.05.007(d), to the Boards of Fisheries and Game language, AS
16.05.280, that CSHB 183(URS) was based on because the AOGCC
language interjects "cause". Mr. Baldwin believes it is implied
[in the current language] that cause is the basic ground for
removal, but it does not mention it.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned, "Better than the Oil and Gas?"
MR. BALDWIN answered in the affirmative, adding, "There's just a
slight change because it mentions (indisc.) may be room for cause
including..."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG agreed. He questioned that "cause" is a term of
art.
MR. BALDWIN answered that it is a legal concept; it is a basic
reasonable finding that there is a justified reason for removing
someone. Mr. Baldwin relayed that he is having a hard time
articulating it the way the courts say it, noting, "Just because
somebody didn't show up for work on one day, or because someone
can't seem to get their thoughts organized to do their work - it
implies something more basic than that, that affects the public
interest the way the office is being exercised, things of that
nature."
Number 2189
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO noted the reference to "neglect of duty" in
CSHB 183(URS). Representative Halcro noted one of the complaints
heard is that a number of the commissioners take an extended period
off. He commented, "I think somebody said six weeks; somebody is
a commercial fisherman, they leave for six weeks. Could that be
construed of neglect of duty ...?"
MR. BALDWIN responded he is not sure of the facts Representative
Halcro is referring to. Mr. Baldwin indicated one of the problems
would be whether it was authorized leave. If the leave was
authorized, there would not be the basic element that something is
occurring contrary to the public interest. Mr. Baldwin indicated
the "cause" requirement is a safeguard, a standard, in certain
respects, to protect the public interest but also the public
officer who has a property right in the office. A certain level of
proof must be reached to show that there is a basic ground or cause
for removal, and it requires some sort of violation of the public
interest. Mr. Baldwin noted it is a term with a lot of legal
meaning, a lot of case law.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG informed the committee there are a number of
people listening via teleconference. With that, the chairman
stated he would entertain a conceptual amendment on page 2 from
Representative Murkowski to remove "inefficiency" and add "cause"
and so forth.
Number 2361
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI made a motion to amend the legislation
[CSHB 183(URS)] beginning on page 2, line 1, after "for" by
deleting "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or misconduct in office"
and inserting "for cause including but not limited to incompetence,
neglect of duty or misconduct in office,". [CSHB 183(URS), Section
2, as conceptually amended would read:
* Sec. 2. AS 42.05.035 is repealed and reenacted to
read:
Sec. 42.05.035. Removal of commissioners. The
governor may remove a commissioner from office only for
cause including but not limited to incompetence, neglect
of duty or misconduct in office, or because the member,
while serving on the commission, is convicted of a
misdemeanor for violating a statute or regulation related
to public utilities or is convicted of a felony. ...]
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG called a brief at-ease for a tape change.
TAPE 99-47, SIDE A
Number 0001
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI repeated the amendment. Representative
Murkowski explained this then leaves in the language regarding
conviction of a misdemeanor or a felony.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated the amendment would be conceptual,
mentioning he thinks the [legislative] drafting manual would not
require the "not limited to". He asked if there were any
questions.
Number 0101
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS wondered if there are definitions for
"incompetence" and "cause".
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted "cause" is a legal term of art, referring
the question to Mr. Baldwin.
MR. BALDWIN responded that "cause" is a term which has a lot of
meaning that has been established over many, many years and a lot
of court cases. He explained it basically means that there has to
be some rational, reasonable basis for the claim of incompetence.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked who determines that.
MR. BALDWIN replied that it is ultimately determined by a hearing
officer after taking evidence; the hearing officer makes a
recommendation to the governor who makes the ultimate decision.
That decision can then be appealed to a court of competent
jurisdiction.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG wondered if the same applied to "incompetence".
MR. BALDWIN indicated it would be the same thing; all of these
grounds are subject to the same kind of an analysis.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG mentioned something about an exhaustive
discussion of incompetence, indicating this had possibly taken
place a few years previously and Representative Brice might
remember this. The chairman confirmed there were no further
questions for Mr. Baldwin. Chairman Rokeberg asked if there was
any objection to adopting the conceptual amendment, indicating this
would be termed Amendment 1. There being none, Amendment 1 was
adopted.
Number 0249
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG designated Amendment H.2 as Amendment 2. The
chairman referred to the amendments before the committee, noting
there was H.2, H.3., H.4 plus an accompanying amendment to H.4,
H.6, H.7, and Representative Halcro's amendment. Chairman Rokeberg
indicated the amendments would be numbered in accordance with their
numbers, and Representative Halcro's amendment would be designated
Amendment 8. The chairman noted, in addition, he has an amendment
to the amendment to Amendment H.4.
Number 0345
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 2. Amendment 2,
labeled 1-LS0764\H.2, Cramer, 4/21/99, read:
Page 1, line 5, following ";":
Insert "relating to a management information
system;"
Page 4, following line 1:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 9. MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM. The
legislature encourages the Alaska Public Utilities
Commission to continue to develop its management
information system and to make the system available to
utilities and to the public."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI objected for purposes of discussion.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated that he would like to make an amendment to
the amendment. The chairman indicated that he would like to
include "electronically available and Internet availability". He
feels this is a major issue.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI spoke to her objection, referring to
testimony at the last hearing [April 23] from either Mr. Yould
[Eric Yould, Executive Director, Alaska Rural Electric Cooperative
Association, Incorporated (ARECA)] or Mr. Rowe [Jim Rowe, Executive
Director, Alaska Telephone Association (ATA)]. Representative
Murkowski noted the April 22, 1999, letter in the bill packet
co-authored by both Mr. Rowe and Mr. Yould. She commented they had
recommended that the management information system language be
strengthened. [The relevant portion of Mr. Yould's and Mr. Rowe's
joint 4/22/99 letter read:
Although we are aware that the APUC is developing a
Management Information System for their dockets, we think
a legislative directive would assure the successful
completion of this project. Therefore we think that it
would be appropriate to establish in statute this method
to manage dockets with the following language.
"The commission shall establish a Management Information
System, accessible by the general public through the
Internet, for the purpose of tracking, scheduling and
managing all dockets within the commission."]
Representative Murkowski referred to Mr. Yould's and Mr. Rowe's
suggested language for establishment of the management information
system. She noted this was as opposed to encouraging the APUC to
do this.
Number 0423
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated the use of "shall" would result in a
fiscal note associated with the legislation. The chairman informed
the committee that the commission is already on the way, but one of
the issues is this availability on the "Net" [Internet] and that is
his reason. Chairman Rokeberg indicated the drafter could rebuild
Amendment 2 by amendment, further indicating that the "encourages"
language rather than the "shall" language would allow it to be
viewed as a friendly amendment to the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI offered, "The legislature encourages the
PUC [public utilities commission] to continue to develop its
management information system, making the system accessible by the
general public through the Internet for the purposes of tracking,
scheduling and managing all dockets within the commission."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG mentioned Mr. Yould's and Mr. Rowe's joint
letter. He requested that Representative Murkowski restate her
language for staff.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI restated the amendment to Amendment 2:
"The legislature encourages the PUC [public utilities
commission] to continue to develop its management
information system to make the system accessible by the
general public through the Internet for the purpose of
tracking, scheduling and managing all dockets within the
commission."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed everyone had that. He asked if there
were any objections to the amendment to the amendment. There being
none, the amendment to Amendment 2 was adopted. Amendment 2 as
amended read:
Page 1, line 5, following ";":
Insert "relating to a management information
system;"
Page 4, following line 1:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 9. MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM. The
legislature encourages the PUC to continue to develop its
management information system to make the system
accessible by the general public through the Internet for
the purpose of tracking, scheduling and managing all
dockets within the commission."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there were any objections to the
amendment as amended. There being be none, Amendment 2 [as
amended] was adopted.
Number 0577
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 3. Amendment 3,
labeled 1-LS0764\H.3, Cramer, 4/21/99, read:
Page 1, line 5, following ";":
Insert "relating to provisions for the resolution of
consumer complaints;"
Page 3, following line 19:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 7. AS 42.05 is amended by adding a new
section to read:
Sec. 42.05.165. Consumer complaints. The
commission shall by regulation provide for
(1) the expedited hearing and resolution
of consumer complaints; and
(2) penalties against a party to a
complaint who causes unjustified delays in a
consumer complaint proceeding."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE objected for discussion.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated he thinks the amendment's purpose is to
impress upon the commission the need to address those consumer
complaints. The chairman commented a guideline had not been
stipulated; one of the amendments did have the prevailing party
winning, but it was felt that was inappropriate also, because it is
usually a consumer against some kind of service provider. The APUC
is the intermediary hearing officer. However, the chairman
expressed that it is the intention to send a very strong message
here that the commission draft regulation to take this issue up to
make sure it can expedite further, which reflects the (indisc.)
report. The commission is given a lot of flexibility here, but, he
commented, "It's a statutory kick in the rear end here to do it."
Number 0653
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked if there is a backlog of consumer
complaints; he wondered if there is a concern about complaints, if
complaints do exist, not being dealt with in a timely manner.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG quoted a portion of the "Message from the
Chairman" of the APUC's 1998 annual report, "The consumer
protection division of the Commission is one of our busiest and
most important. Our consumer specialists report 706 consumer
complaints, a 23 percent increase over the previous year. As one
of the few consumer response sections in state government, we feel
it is essential to have more resources in this area [Sam Cotten,
APUC Chairman]." Chairman Rokeberg noted the budget does provide
nine more positions this year at APUC.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI referred to Mr. Yould's and Mr. Rowe's
letter. From under the heading "Consumer Complaints," she quoted,
"We are not aware of consumer complaints that languish. Summaries
of consumer complaints are presented monthly at a public meeting
and upon occasion a particular complaint is reviewed. We believe
staff resolves most consumer complaints without need for referral
to the commissioners." Representative Murkowski said she had made
a notation on this amendment that Mr. Rowe had said that this
particular amendment was moot; however, she does not remember where
that came from. Representative Murkowski guesses she thinks it
does not hurt to go ahead and put this in the statute so that it is
known that resolution of the consumer complaints will be provided
for by regulation. She indicated that although there is no current
backlog of complaints, one could be anticipated, which justifies
the amendment.
Number 0772
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE added he believes that all that is really
being said is that the commission will establish for expedited
hearings when necessary.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted it is a public policy statement; the
legislature wants the commission to take up expedite the resolution
of these hearings.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE agreed; it would allow for areas where there
is a particular topic of high concern which needs to be
fast-tracked above and beyond the regular process.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said that, on the other hand, it could be argued
on the other hand that it may be superfluous.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO indicated his agreement with the amendment
He indicated that even the NRRI [National Regulatory Research
Institute] report speaks about how commissioners from around the
United States have agreed that in the near future much of the work
public utility commissions do will be directed toward protecting
consumers and (indisc.) markets and educating them [this appeared
to be quoted from the NRRI report]. Therefore, Representative
Halcro thinks the amendment appropriate.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS questioned, then, if penalties would be set
by the commission.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG answered in the affirmative; the penalties would
be set via the regulations. The chairman added, "And this is
against the caveat from Mr. Baldwin put on earlier, that it would
have to be tested to make sure. ... I'd consider them sanctions
(indisc.) hopefully the Department of Law will give us some further
recommendations on Wednesday [April 28] after (indisc.) chance to
review this." The chairman asked if there were objections
maintained to Amendment 3. There being no further objection,
Amendment 3 was adopted.
Number 0901
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 4, noting there
is an amendment [in printed form] to this amendment. Amendment 4,
labeled 1-LS0764\H.4, Cramer, 4/23/99, read:
Page 2, line 13, following "(a)":
Insert "Members shall be qualified as follows:
(1) three members shall be at least one
of the following:
(A) a graduate of an accredited
school of law;
(B) a graduate of an accredited
university with a major in engineering; or
(C) a graduate of an accredited
university with a major in finance,
accounting, or business administration; and
(2) two members shall be consumers.
(b)"
Reletter the following subsection accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS objected for purposes of discussion.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG moved the amendment to Amendment 4. The printed
amendment to Amendment 4 offered by Representative Rokeberg,
labeled "AMENDMENT to Amendment h.4," read:
Page 1, Line 8
AFTER: "accounting,"
INSERT: "economics, public policy"
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there were any objections to the
amendment to the amendment to the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE objected for purposes of discussion.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG explained that the amendment to amendment is to
add the academic studies of economics and public policy. The
chairman commented he wished to amend his amendment to the
amendment and say "public administration". He indicated that is
the formal term.
There was some committee discussion regarding Willamette
University, Chairman Rokeberg's and Representative Halcro's alma
mater, and the university mascot. Representative Murkowski also
expressed approval of Willamette University as well.
Number 0983
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA wondered if the addition of "or a degree in
a related field of study" to the amendment would be considered.
She suspects there are degrees from different universities which
may have similar titles, but would perhaps be excluded if there are
specific degree name requirements.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG responded that the existing statute has
specifically stipulated seats for law, accounting and engineering.
Significant testimony in the special committee was that this
hampers the ability to find good quality people. The purpose of
the amendment before the committee, in total, is to at least "raise
the bar" so that there are at least some requirements or so forth.
The chairman expressed his concerns regarding set requirements,
noting he is actually lukewarm on the entire amendment. Chairman
Rokeberg indicated CSHB 183(URS) basically reads "five public
members." He questioned whether the committee wanted to come up
with "weasel words" like "that have demonstrated competence and
professionalism in other fields" rather than being specific as to
fields. In other words, trying to raise the bar from just a public
member to demonstrated competency. The chairman said would be
happy to have the committee's input on this.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE indicated some agreement.
Number 1118
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated the amendment in total narrowed it down
but it might perhaps be too narrow. The chairman noted on the
other hand, the possibility of simply having a public member,
adding, "So if anybody can come up with some good weasel words to
general competency ..." Chairman Rokeberg questioned the feelings
of the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE indicated he thinks he is agreeing with the
chairman. It would be okay to sort of establish some standards,
but indicated he is not sure if they want to establish specific
standards. Representative Brice commented that he has been
involved in enough floor fights and confirmation fights on the
vagaries involved with what requirements are in statute and how
people fit that. He noted his opinion is somewhat that it is
interesting concept but he doesn't know whether or not they will
get there from here.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated the testimony in the special committee
regarding qualifications was that the legislature still reviews and
confirms the commissioners. The chairman referred to the Real
Estate Commission and the confirmation hearings of the Governor's
appointees to that body which had taken place at the beginning of
the meeting. The chairman indicated that if those appointees had
not been known to him, the committee would have thoroughly grilled
them because those appointees make quasi-judicial decisions. He
added, "And those people that serve on the APUC and some of these
other - and the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and the
'Royalty (ph)' Commission [Alaska Royalty Oil and Gas Development
Advisory Board] have to make sure that they're competent to perform
that." There are only so many positions that are appointments that
are not run concurrently with the governor. There are those
commissions that have appointments that survive the governorships
and have special quasi-judicial powers. Amongst these is the APUC.
Number 1277
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI admitted some confusion and wondered if
wondered if the intent was that at least three of the members shall
be one lawyer, one engineer and one (indisc.).
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted that is not the intention.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI indicated, then, the intention of the
amendment is that there is a list and that three are chosen from
that list and plus the two consumer members; therefore, more than
one person could be represented from an area on that list.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG agreed that was the intention, but he is backing
off even from the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI noted, if she may speak to the
professional qualifications, she has not spent much time in front
of the APUC herself, but other members of the [law] firm she has
been involved with in the past have. She stated she has learned
that it is helpful to have someone on the commission who has,
especially in the engineering field, some understanding of
engineering. Representative Murkowski indicated the same thing
probably applies with respect to having training in the field of
law, and financial and public administration fields. She is
concerned that people who do not have their own area of expertise
have to rely more on their staff. Representative Murkowski
commented, "And their staff is going to be the good staff and
they're going to tell you what it is from their perspective, but
every now and again it's wise to question what your staff is
saying, and you can't do that if you don't have a level of
expertise in certain areas." She also indicated the possibility of
a commissioner consulting another commissioner who has that
expertise regarding staff recommendations; she thinks the
professional expertise is a helpful thing to have.
Number 1427
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA offered another possible change to the
amendment. She suggested, "a graduate of an accredited university
and proven professional experience with demonstrated - either
specific skills required in service as a commissioner or just
skills required in service as a commissioner", might work because
so many times people's experience is greater than their degree
itself. She feels that things other than the specific skills
mentioned here are more handy to a group that is trying to solve
problems.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG agreed, but said, on the other hand, it is very
general. The chairman also said he does not like the inclusion in
the original amendment that two of the members shall be consumers
and would rather just make them public members; there is no
qualification whatsoever since anyone can be a consumer. Chairman
Rokeberg commented he did not think that was appropriate; he feels
even those people who are ostensibly supposed to be representing
consumers in this area need to have the intellectual ability to
take up the task. Therefore, that speaks more to their point of
view than their intelligence or education - not to say that by
implication that consumers are any less educated than any other
professional. The chairman indicated it was the construction that
troubled him.
Number 1526
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE questioned how this would technically work.
He asked what would happen with the sitting commissioners: Would
they have to have their backgrounds reviewed and would the
commission have to be restructured around this formula on the
effective date?
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI stated that the existing statutes already
state that there shall be one lawyer, one engineer and one
accountant.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE commented that he was thinking backwards,
indicating he had been somewhat confused.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked, "If this is already required then why
are ...?"
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI clarified that what is required is that
the commission have one lawyer, one engineer and one accountant.
The amendment would allow for three members to be chosen from all
these different professions. Therefore, it would be possible to
have two public administrators and one engineer, instead of one
from each.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI and REPRESENTATIVE BRICE both agreed the
situation would be okay if the amendment was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI commented there is more flexibility with
this.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA agrees that there is more flexibility, but
she suggests opening it up just a tiny bit wider because there are
lots of resources out there.
Number 1616
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked if the amendment to the amendment had
been approved yet.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG answered in the negative. He commented the
committee was having somewhat of an informal work session. The
chairman noted he had been thinking about something a little more
generic, "that the governor should consider the background,
education and professional competency when appointing the public
members", because there are five public members in the current
legislation [no required qualifications for any APUC commissioner].
This language would require that all five of the appointees would
have to have a good background, education and professional
competency before being appointed.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI questioned that wouldn't it be assumed the
governor is checking that in the first place.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated it might be redundant.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said she thought the chairman was applying
this to the two public members. She likes that idea because it
gives the public members some qualification.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO said the education and professional
background of the first three public appointees has already been
mandated.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said that the bill could also be left alone. The
legislation currently says five public members, but does not define
them. The chairman indicated this was the special committee's
decision after this same discussion. He clarified that there are
the qualifications in existing statute for three of the seats.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI stated that she still likes the
professional qualifications. She reiterated that she likes having
a pool of professional qualifications to choose from for the first
three members and then having two public members.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if ARECA or ATA had any opinions on
Amendment 4.
ERIC YOULD, Executive Director, Alaska Rural Electric Cooperative
Association, Incorporated, indicated he thinks ARECA has already
testified on this.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if Mr. Wilcox to comment as the
representative of the bill sponsor.
Number 1761
WALT WILCOX, Legislative Assistant to Representative Bill Hudson,
Alaska State Legislature, came forward as the aide the to House
Special Committee on Utility Restructuring, the bill sponsor. Mr.
Wilcox explained that the special committee had had lengthy
discussion on this matter. He stated, "As it turns out, the
original reason for having a lawyer, an engineer and an accountant,
was when the commission was first formed it was a very small
commission with very little staff, if any. So, they had to perform
their own work. They had to be their own lawyer, their own
engineer, their own accountant. Subsequent to that, I think we've
got nearly 50 employees that take that burden off of the
commissioners. So, from that perspective the Utility Restructuring
Committee decided that five at large members were the best way to
go for the simple reason that you had a larger pool to draw from,
keeping in mind that the checks and balances are there with the
governor appointing and the legislature confirming the
appointment."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG withdrew Amendment 4.
Number 1810
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 5. The chairman
indicated the amendment's intention is to help expedite the matters
in the dockets before the commission. It sets a deadline target,
but does allow the commission the flexibility to extend if need be.
He said, "It sends a big message and huge shot of a cannon across
the bow." Amendment 5, labeled 1-LS0764\H.5, Cramer, 4/23/99,
read:
Page 1, line 4, following ";":
Insert "relating to hearings held by the Alaska
Public Utilities Commission;"
Page 3, following line 19:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 7. AS 42.05.141 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(d) On the filing of a petition, application,
or complaint concerning a matter within the
jurisdiction of the commission under this chapter,
the chair of the commission shall promptly fix a
date for hearing. The hearing shall be held
without undue delay. The hearing may not be
scheduled to begin later than five months after the
petition, application, or complaint was filed
unless the commission approves an extension of time
for good cause. After the conclusion of the
hearing, the commission shall enter its order
within 30 days."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 4, following line 5:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 11. The provisions of AS 42.05.141(d),
enacted by sec. 7 of this Act, apply to petitions,
applications, and complaints first filed with the
commission on or after the effective date of this Act."
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI questioned, then, if there are deadlines
of five months and orders being entered within 30 days as stated in
the amendment, what happens if they fail to comply. She asked what
the enforcement is.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented the legislature cuts off their funding.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI referred to previous testimony, noting she
agrees that something needs to be done to eliminate the delays and
the backlog. However, recognizing the complexities of some of
these cases, she is concerned with a deadline. Representative
Murkowski noted it is quite possible that both parties would
request continuances and this amendment would not allow a
continuance. These tariff rate cases go on for years, and it is
not necessarily because the commissioners are not acting
expediently, it is because it is incredibly complex and the parties
need additional time. Therefore, she thinks there needs to be
something which says that expediency is important and should be the
number one priority, but she does not think a message should be
sent conveying that the quality be sacrificed for the expediency.
Representative Murkowski indicated there needs to be a
reasonableness provision.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG agreed. However, his rejoinder would be that
there is the ability to extend after the period. There is no
extension provision for the order being issued within 30 days after
the hearing.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO noted he agrees with Representative
Murkowski. He believes that it was brought up at the last hearing
that a quicker response would be accepted even though it may not be
well-thought out. Representative Halcro referred to the NRRI
report, commenting it does say that. He apparently quoted, "Most
who commented on the training that had been provided for writing
orders regarded the training exercise as a failure." Therefore,
timeliness is the key issue, but if "you slap this 30 days on them,
and if they have a more complex case that maybe takes a little bit
more homework to do, or they don't get their training in line in
time, I think ... you have some problems here."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if anyone in the audience cared to comment.
Number 1973
REED STOOPS, Lobbyist for General Communications, Incorporated
(GCI), came forward. Mr. Stoops commented that he has also sat
through all the hearings on this subject. Not having dockets
completed in a timely manner is probably the most common complaint
he has heard, and certainly his client has had ample experience
with delays of years before decisions. Mr. Stoops agrees with
Chairman Rokeberg that the intent is to set at least a target date
for a deadline for a docket, which would be adequate in most cases.
Mr. Stoops noted the amendment clearly says the commission has the
opportunity to extend that decision date for good cause; presumably
the commission would simply enter a letter or make an announcement
that it has extended, and it would be required to give a reason for
the extension. He observed that it is not really written very
tightly and GCI's preference would probably be to make it tighter,
but the language would at least give incentive to the commission.
He does not believe that anyone from the previous hearing disagreed
with the concept of trying to find some reasonable way to get a
timely decision without being so strict that the commission is
limited in truly complex cases. He added he would assume that is
good cause if both parties agree that there ought to be an
extension.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said that she does not disagree with Mr.
Stoops' comments regarding obtaining an extension for good cause.
However, she is looking more at the timeliness of the commission
entering the order. She reads that as "after the conclusion of the
hearing, the commission shall enter its order within 30 days."
Therefore, the commission has a 30-day window. Recognizing that
there can be rate hearings lasting for years and banker boxes of
pleadings and dockets, et cetera, she does not know that it is
reasonable to really "kick out an order within 30 days." She
believes it is probably a good idea to put a time frame on it, but
she personally does not feel that 30 days is reasonable for all
dockets.
Number 2087
MR. STOOPS suggested that perhaps the good cause extension could be
added to the 30 days as well. He thinks it is sort of a
rule-of-thumb type deadline which would cover most dockets because
most of them are not that complicated.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated trying to categorize the type of
dockets and set up a time frame was looked at. The chairman
questioned if anyone else cared to comment on this.
Number 2113
MR. YOULD noted he had not planned to testify, but thinks it is a
good amendment. He agrees that it may not be as tightly written as
ARECA would like to see it. Mr. Yould suggested amending the
language that begins on line 8 of the printed amendment, "The
hearing shall be held without undue delay", by inserting, "however"
following "delay". This would ties the two sentences together and
indicates that there is a desire to do it as soon as possible, but
certainly not later than five months. Mr. Yould commented that
when ARECA's general managers met with the APUC commissioners on
April 15, 1999, they asked the commissioners the same question:
Would you all like to see statutory dates. He noted, "I guess I'm
kind of speaking on their behalf and I hope I'm not getting in
trouble with this: They kind of indicated that when their feet are
held to the fire, that ... they will get the dockets out, and they
- the body language was not negative I guess is the best way to put
it." [The amended language Mr. Yould suggested would read: "The
hearing shall be held without undue delay; however, the hearing may
not be scheduled to begin later than five months after the
petition, application, or complaint was filed unless the commission
approves an extension of time for good cause."]
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked if Mr. Yould interprets the amendment
to read that the hearing may be extended for time: You can extend
the period for the hearing for good cause. He reads it that the
order has to be given within 30 days, as did Representative
Murkowski.
MR. YOULD answered yes. However, he thinks the commission should
have that flexibility for good cause but the intent is there.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said he would finish the chairman's thought
that they duplicate "unless the commission approves an extension of
the time for good cause after 30 days".
Number 2204
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG understood Representative Brice's comment as an
amendment to Amendment 5, after "30 days" on line 12 [of the
printed amendment] to add "unless the commission approves an
extension of time for good cause". [The sentence as amended would
read: "After conclusion of the hearing, the commission shall enter
its order within 30 days unless the commission approves an
extension of time for good cause."] The chairman asked if there
were any objections to the amendment to the amendment. There being
none, the amendment to Amendment 5 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS noted he did not have any major opposition
but it seems like the amendment to the amendment just adopted
"takes all the teeth really out of what you're trying to do with
this amendment, if you're trying to force some decision to be made
... if the commission's will is to stall ... is to have lots more
time, they're going to have to lots more time anyway because
they'll just keep adding on to their extension here."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG suggested another way to do it would to say
either 60 days or 45 days.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS replied that he would rather do it that way
himself.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Yould, Mr. Stoops and Mr. Baldwin what
their preference would be.
Number 2270
MR. BALDWIN concurred with Representative Murkowski's comments. He
does not think this works; he witnessed the legislature attempt to
put a six-month time period on the court system for getting
opinions out, that did not work. Mr. Baldwin thinks there are many
ways for boards to wiggle out of these things. He agrees with
Representative Murkowski and does not think it should be done at
all.
MR. STOOPS indicated a date certain would be preferable to the
current amendment language.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked whether 45 or 60 would be preferable. The
chairman asked if Mr. Yould had any preference.
MR. YOULD commented the present system is not working at all.
Anything better than that would be preferable.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned, however, which is more realistic 30,
45 or 60 days.
MR. YOULD said to use 30 or 45 days. If it doesn't work, it
doesn't work legally, but the point is it will work most of the
time. In other words, the intent is there; the commission will try
to attain it, but it may not always make it.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned if Mr. Cotten or Mr. Lohr [Robert,
Lohr, Executive Director, APUC] were online.
SAM COTTEN, Chairman and Commissioner, Alaska Public Utilities
Commission, Department of Commerce and Economic Development
responded via teleconference from Anchorage. He confirmed for
Chairman Rokeberg that he had copies of the amendments.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Cotten for his comments on Amendment 5.
MR. COTTEN said he thinks Mr. Yould was probably referring to his
(Mr. Cotten's) comments in the reflection of the meeting the other
day [April 15, ARECA/APUC]. Mr. Cotten related he harkened back to
the lack of a limit on the number of days the legislature could be
in session when he was first a legislator. He was convinced it was
a bad idea when it was proposed to limit the legislative session to
120 days. After it came into effect, he was really happy about it.
He thinks they could make it work well there as well, although he
is not sure what the appropriate time period is. Mr. Cotten noted
he does not think it is a bad thing to say that an order should be
issued within a certain time period. He indicated that there are
instances when it is difficult to get a consensus among the
commission members, but a time limit might also help in that
regard. Therefore, speaking for himself, not the commission, he
thinks some sort of deadlines would have a positive effect on the
operation of the commission as far as timeliness is concerned. It
might be difficult to craft the proper language to achieve that,
but he favors it as a concept.
Number 2378
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE understands that GCI has a very difficult
docket in front of the commission that is taking a great deal of
time. He questioned if the commission could have addressed that
docket under this time line.
MR. COTTEN responded he is not sure which one [docket]
Representative Brice is referring to.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted, then, there are multiple [dockets].
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA questioned if the "unless good cause" at the
end would give enough latitude.
MR. COTTEN replied he thinks that would work pretty well on the
first part. If the parties agreed to try to work it out amongst
themselves and that pushed it past the deadline, that would
probably be good cause. Mr. Cotten emphasized another point he
wanted to make is that not everything goes to hearing. Often an
application comes in and is approved as a routine matter;
therefore, it is not necessary to assign hearing date for each
case. This might be a technical consideration. He indicated
allowing the "for good cause" on the chosen amount of days -
whether 30, 45, or another number - would provide the commission an
opportunity for an extension, if commission is required to explain
why. He further indicated the biggest problems have been failure
by the commission to reach a consensus, or that someone insists on
writing 30 or 40 pages of commentary before even reaching the
section in the order which announces the decision. Mr. Cotten
added, "And, again, I think that's oftentimes unnecessary."
[TESTIMONY INTERRUPTED BY AUTOMATIC TAPE CHANGE]
TAPE 99-47, SIDE B
Number 0001
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO stated, "...60, 45's a compromise."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG suggested 5 non-seriously, noting that came from
the industry.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE indicated 60 days would not be long enough.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI indicated she thought it wouldn't be long
enough in certain instances.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG agreed with 60 days.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS indicated he agreed with 60 days.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA questioned if "unless good cause" was being
added in.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI commented, "'Unless good cause', you
delete that..."
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS stated 60 days without any exemption.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned if Representative Harris wanted to
amend his amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS responded it was not his amendment.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated it had been assigned to him.
Number 0031
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS made a motion to adopt a conceptual amendment
"that deletes the section that was just put behind 30 days and
changes 30 days to 60."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated the committee would discuss this at the
next hearing on the legislation [Wednesday, April 28]. The
chairman asked if there was any objection to the amendment [to the
amendment].
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE objected, noting that he had just made the
amendment [to the amendment]. Representative Brice explained he
made the amendment [to the amendment] because he thinks the
"pressure relief valve" will be needed.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented that is a good point, suggesting that
the committee remain with the 60 days. The committee can then see
what happens between now and Wednesday [April 28]. The chairman
indicated the issue could be taken up again at that time.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said, then, with that assurance, he withdraws
his objection.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there are any objections to the
[conceptual] amendment to the amendment. The chairman gaveled
down, indicating the amendment to the amendment had been adopted.
Chairman Rokeberg stated there is a technical amendment he would
like to make as well.
Number 0066
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI noted she had no objection. However,
because the committee is still discussing this and whether 60 days
is enough, Representative Murkowski commented she had brought up
the question of enforcement and has not seen any amendments to that
effect. Perhaps this is also something the committee needs before
it at the next hearing. She said, "How do you hold the feet to the
fire?"
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG joked that the chairman [of the APUC] has to dive
off the Captain Cook statute.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked the chairman's brief indulgence and
informed the committee his staff had proposed a scenario to
encourage a quick decision-making process.
Number 0094
JONATHON LACK, Legislative Assistant to Representative Andrew
Halcro, Alaska State Legislature, came forward. Mr. Lack indicated
he had just pointed out to Representative Halcro that the supreme
court has an order in place for superior and district court judges,
providing a maximum of six months from the time a motion is
completed until the time an order is issued. If a judge has not
issued an order at the end of the six months, the judge has to
self-report to the supreme court and is not paid until the order is
issued in that matter.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated the committee would take this under
advisement. He noted the amendment to the amendment had been
adopted. He would like to propose the third ["second"] amendment
to the amendment. It would be a technical conceptual amendment to
Amendment 5 to pick up on what Mr. Cotten had said. Chairman
Rokeberg noted, "it's when a hearing is appropriate here, to change
the wording here." Mr. Cotten's testimony was that a hearing was
not appropriate at all times; therefore, it is necessary to
conceptually amend this amendment "to something of the effect that
on a hearing -- when a hearing is appropriate." Chairman Rokeberg
confirmed the committee was in understanding and he commented that
the word "hearing" is used several times.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE noted the language, "when appropriate".
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented that it is a conceptual amendment,
indicating the drafter could determine the proper phrasing. The
chairman asked if there was any further discussion on Amendment 5.
He noted they have it on the 60 days and with the proviso that the
committee will be taking this up again, hoping some feedback is
received from the commission, industry, and all affected parties.
The chairman reiterated his intention is to put this into a CS,
"and make sure they know we're serious and then they'll hear back."
He asked if there were any further comments and stated the
objection is removed from Amendment 5. Chairman Rokeberg
questioned if there were any objections to Amendment 5 as amended.
There being none, Amendment 5 as amended was adopted.
[Note: the chairman did not formally ask the committee if there
were any objections to the third ["second"] amendment to Amendment
5, the technical conceptual amendment to the amendment, but no
objections were voiced by the committee].
Number 0181
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 6. Amendment 6,
labeled 1-LS0764\H.6, Cramer, 4/23/99, read:
Page 1, line 4, following ";":
Insert "relating to procedural motions of the Alaska
Public Utilities Commission;"
Page 3, following line 19:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 7. AS 42.05.151(b) is amended to read:
(b) The commission shall adopt regulations
governing practice and procedure, consistent with
due process of law, including the conduct of formal
and informal investigations, prehearing
[PRE-HEARING] conferences, hearings, and
proceedings, and the handling of procedural motions
by a single commissioner. The commission, or an
assigned commissioner, shall enter an order on
procedural motions within 10 days after the close
of the applicable briefing period. Technical rules
of evidence need not apply to investigations,
prehearing [PRE-HEARING] conferences, hearings, and
proceedings before the commission. The commission
shall provide for representation by out-of-state
attorneys substantially in accordance with Rule 81,
Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted there had been some testimony from Mr.
Schroer [Don Schroer, lobbyist for GCI and former APUC chairman] at
the previous hearing [April 23] recommending an amendment to the
amendment to include mediation and arbitration. Chairman Rokeberg
referred to line 8 of the written amendment, "investigations,
prehearing [PRE-HEARING] conferences, hearings, and proceedings,",
noting Mr. Schroer had recommended adding "mediation and
arbitration" after "hearings". He asked Mr. Cotten if the
commission currently conducts mediation or arbitration.
MR. COTTEN answered in the affirmative. He noted that in some
"telecom" cases as a result of the "Telecom Act" [federal
Telecommunications Act of 1996] there is a provision to do that
under certain interconnection agreements between competitors and
the incumbent local exchange carriers.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted the added language should be "arbitration,
mediation"; therefore, it would be appropriate to include that.
Number 0253
MR. COTTEN agreed he thinks it would be appropriate; he emphasized
he is speaking for himself - the commission has not considered
these amendments.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted, then, he would move Amendment 6 and if he
hears objections for purposes of discussion, he will then move the
amendment to the amendment, after the word "hearing" on line 8
[written amendment copy] to add "mediation, arbitration, and" in
conceptual form to ensure the grammar is correct. The chairman
asked if there is any objection.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE questioned if mediation and arbitration are
applicable to the rules of evidence, indicating he was referring to
the lower amendment language, "Technical rules of evidence need not
apply to investigations, prehearing [PRE-HEARING] conference,
hearings, and proceedings before the commission.", appearing on
lines 11 through 13 of the printed amendment copy.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI indicated this was true, at least when the
court rules.
Number 0293
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG expanded the amendment to the amendment to
include adding the new language after "hearings" on line 13. He
asked if there was any objection to the amendment to the amendment.
There being none, the [conceptual] amendment to Amendment 6 was
adopted. Subsection (b) of Amendment 6 as conceptually amended
read:
(b) The commission shall adopt regulations governing
practice and procedure, consistent with due process of
law, including the conduct of formal and informal
investigations, prehearing [PRE-HEARING] conferences,
hearings, mediation, arbitration, and proceedings, and
the handling of procedural motions by a single
commissioner. The commission, or an assigned
commissioner, shall enter an order on procedural motions
within 10 days after the close of the applicable briefing
period. Technical rules of evidence need not apply to
investigations, prehearing [PRE-HEARING] conferences,
hearings, mediation, arbitration, and proceedings before
the commission. The commission shall provide for
representation by out-of-state attorneys substantially in
accordance with Rule 81, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted the amendment language on lines 9 through
11 of the printed amendment, "The commission, or an assigned
commissioner, shall enter an order on procedural motions within 10
days after the close of the applicable briefing period.". He asked
for Mr. Cotten's input on this amendment.
MR. COTTEN commented he is not sure of the definition for
"procedural motions", but he does not think it is too much to ask
for a ruling within 10 days on simple procedural motions as he
understands a procedural motion. His initial reaction is that it
does not look like it would cause any problems.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked for Mr. Baldwin's assistance regarding the
whether "procedural motions" are defined, as far as a commissioner
or a hearing officer before the commission.
Number 0367
MR. BALDWIN answered that procedural motions are generally motions
for how to conduct the docket. They are not dispositive motions
relating to the merits of the case.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG possibly questioned whether the civil procedure
rules the commission works under are defined in court rules.
MR. BALDWIN responded that they are generally defined in
regulations of the commission; the commission generally sets its
own procedure. Mr. Baldwin asked for confirmation from Mr. Cotten
that that was correct.
MR. COTTEN indicated he and Mr. Lohr had just been discussing that.
Mr. Cotten said he certainly does not disagree with Mr. Baldwin:
A non-dispositive motion would be considered procedural. Mr.
Cotten said he just had not been sure if there is an actual
definition for procedural motion, but he thinks most people operate
with the assumption that it is a time extension or some other minor
motion practice.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Cotten if there are any practical
problems with Amendment 6.
MR. COTTEN answered not that he has noticed "right off the bat
here."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there were any questions or comments
from the committee members. The chairman asked if there were any
objections to Amendment 6 [as amended]. There being none,
Amendment 6 was adopted [as amended].
Number 0426
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 7. Amendment 7,
labeled 1-LS0764\H.7, Cramer, 4/23/99:
Page 1, line 4, following ";":
Insert "permitting arbitrators to conduct formal
hearings before the Alaska Public Utilities Commission;"
Page 3, following line 19:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 7. AS 42.05.171 is amended to read:
Sec. 42.05.171. Formal hearings. A formal
hearing that the commission has power to hold may
be held by or before three or more commissioners, a
hearing officer, or an administrative law judge
designated for the purpose by the commission. In
appropriate cases, a formal hearing may be held
before an arbitrator designated for the purpose by
the commission. The testimony and evidence in a
formal hearing may be taken by the commissioners,
by the hearing officer, [OR] by the administrative
law judge, or by the arbitrator to whom the hearing
has been assigned. A commissioner who has not
heard or read the testimony, including the
argument, may not participate in making a decision
of the commission. In determining the place of a
hearing, the commission shall give preference to
holding the hearing at a place most convenient for
those interested in the subject of the hearing."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
AN UNIDENTIFIED COMMITTEE MEMBER objected.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented he didn't know if he liked arbitration.
The chairman asked Mr. Cotten's opinion of Amendment 7 regarding
arbitration, indicating Mr. Cotten had testified the commission is
required to use arbitration under the Telecommunications Act of
1996.
MR. COTTEN responded that the commission has a couple of choices
there. Mr. Cotten noted the commission can act as the
arbiter/arbitrator. Additionally, he described that in one case in
an Anchorage where GCI and ATU [Anchorage Telephone Utility]
entered into an inter-connection agreement, those two entities
agreed upon an arbiter and agreed to pay for that person "to hammer
out a lot of minor disputes." However, Mr. Cotten noted that is
quite different than what this proposes as a formal hearing. The
commission has not had any experience with a formal hearing in
front of an arbiter although it does employ administrative law
judges and, occasionally, hearing officers. He noted the
commission is at least able to now use hearing officers.
Therefore, this would be something new and he thinks the limited
experience the commission has had so far has been successful; this
would expand to it formal hearings and he is uncertain about that.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG requested Mr. Stoops' comments and analysis of
the intention.
Number 0491
MR. STOOPS, representing GCI, stated he thinks the language is
permissive, as in GCI's earlier proposed amendment. Noting the
language beginning with "In appropriate cases,", Mr. Stoops
indicated GCI's assumption is that this language adds a new method
by which the commission might address certain cases but it is up to
the commission to choose, not the parties themselves. Therefore,
Mr. Stoops guesses the question should be whether it is
objectionable to have this potential method available to the
commission for future use.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG expressed that he personally does not care for
arbitration, adding that the provision here does not statutorily
indicate whether it would be binding arbitration or not.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE commented it would not be binding.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated, then, he understands it would not be
binding because of that.
MR. STOOPS thought it would be up to the commission to make that
determination. In the case cited by Mr. Cotten, it wasn't a formal
hearing but the procedure for resolving disputes between GCI and
ATU on local competition worked quite well.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if that was what GCI had in mind when this
amendment was requested.
MR. STOOPS answered in the affirmative, adding, "Although the way
that this is drafted ... Chairman Cotten is correct that -- I mean
they may not have technically called that a formal hearing, I think
... that was certainly one of the cases that we viewed favorably
that ought to be expanded, and perhaps Chairman Cotten would have
a different term of art."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated the language is being inserted into an
existing heading, with regards to drafting, and perhaps that has
something to do with it. The chairman questioned if GCI's
intention was more informal arbitration, such as it had experienced
[with ATU].
MR. STOOPS replied that GCI would accept either advisory or binding
arbitration as alternative, because sometimes it is the fastest way
to resolve certain issues. He emphasized that this is simply an
option for the commission; it would not be required to do this.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented, "Right. Well I would take informal as
- as something..."
MR. STOOPS interjected that if the chairman has a different
terminology which would be appropriate, that would be fine.
Number 0590
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE suggested the possible removal of "formal",
and be silent on it.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted that "formal" is used in the heading and
also the other existing law, so he would be reluctant to change it
there. The chairman questioned the definition of "formal" as
opposed to "informal".
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE thought a formal hearing would be a hearing
where the decision is made, the final last step, as opposed to an
informal hearing, or secondary or tertiary hearing.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned whether Mr. Cotten or Mr. Lohr had any
further comment on that.
MR. COTTEN noted he had been unsure that he had gotten the exact
question; he asked if they had been speaking of the formal hearing
here.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG agreed, noting it is in that section of the
existing statute. The chairman asked if this concept of
arbitration needs to be removed and reinserted elsewhere.
MR. COTTEN noted that, after hearing Mr. Stoops' comments, he (Mr.
Cotten) thinks it appears to offer the commission another
opportunity to do something besides hold the hearing itself. He
understands that the current law allows the commission to assign
that to a hearing officer who would then deliver a decision to the
commission for approval or disapproval. This also applies to the
administrative law judge, and he indicated that apparently the
situation would also be the same with an arbiter. In that regard,
Mr. Cotten indicated he does not think it would probably cause any
problems.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated that both parties would have to submit to
the arbitration and apparently agree to the arbitrator. Therefore,
it seems to him that this is a positive tool but both parties would
have to agree to it. He asked Mr. Stoops if that would be the
intention.
Number 0678
MR. STOOPS agreed, noting the amendment is silent on whether it is
binding or advisor [arbitration]. Since it is optional anyway, it
would be up to the commission.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented, then, the rules of the game would be
established by the parties to it. This merely authorizes the
commission to allow for arbitration. Chairman Rokeberg asked if
that is correct. He questioned if everyone had an understanding of
what they were doing here. He asked if there were any objections
to the amendment. There being none, Amendment 7 was adopted.
MR. COTTEN indicated hearing officers, administrative law judges,
or possibly other public employees, act in an arbitration function
for the state. Therefore, from the drafting of the amendment, he
is not sure he understands the difference between hiring an
arbitrator and hiring a hearing officer, and having each return
with a decision.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG responded it is his understanding an arbitrator
has to be a member of the American Arbitration Association, and,
therefore, may not be on the employment roles of the state. This
would be a step toward privatization. The chairman indicated this
may be a positive thing, as an alternative conflict resolution
device that can expedite the commission's matters, because the
commission does not have to take up the issue itself but it would
be addressed under the auspices of the commission. Chairman
Rokeberg asked Mr. Stoops if that is correct.
MR. STOOPS agreed.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated the committee has before it the last
amendment of the evening, the corrected Amendment 8 by
Representative Halcro.
Number 0766
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO made a motion to adopt Amendment 8.
Amendment 8, an unlabeled printed amendment [the printed amendment
was numbered lines 1-5, but written in continuous paragraph form]
read:
Page 1, line 8, following "(b) The" delete "governor
shall designate one member of the commission as chair.
The chair shall serve as chair for a term of four years,
but may be appointed for successive terms." and insert
"commission shall select one member of the commission to
serve as chair for a term of two years. A commissioner
may be elected to successive terms as chair of the
commission."
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE objected.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO spoke to the amendment. He commented that
this amendment came from someone very close to the APUC who feels
that with all of the overhaul being done, this is one way to
depoliticize the commission ["board"] a bit more; create a better
working environment where commission members would select their
chairman rather than having the governor appoint. Representative
Halcro said he feels, in listening to her [unidentified] suggestion
and then reviewing the bill, they go to great lengths in this
legislation to provide the commissioners some increased powers.
Representative Halcro indicated he thinks allowing the majority of
the commissioners to elect their chair follows this. The chair
would be appointed for a two-year period, with the commissioners
then voting to either retain the current chair for an additional
two years or electing a new one.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE spoke to his objection. He thinks they should
just let the Governor do it. It is something the governors have
been doing; Representative Brice noted it has not been a problem
brought to his attention by any of the commissioners. He does not
know where the amendment is coming; he has not heard any
controversy or complaint.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted there had been similar testimony in the
special committee. He asked if Mr. Wilcox recalled that.
Number 0856
MR. WILCOX said he had spoken with the chairman of the special
committee [Representative Bill Hudson] on this particular matter.
It was Representative Hudson's opinion that the special committee
had reached no conclusion because the members really did not care
whether it was two years or four years.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned, however, about the election of the
[APUC] chair by the membership.
MR. WILCOX believed there had been some discussion on that
particular point and an amendment proposed by Representative
Rokeberg that was deemed to be somewhat unconstitutional. Mr.
Wilcox indicated there appeared to be some conflict with Article
III, Section 26, of the Alaska State Constitution. He commented
this issue had just been discussed with Mr. Baldwin, indicating
they would need more time to address it. [Constitution of the
State of Alaska, Article III, Section 26 reads:
SECTION 26. BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. When a board or
commission is at the head of a principal department or a
regulatory or quasi-judicial agency, its members shall be
appointed by the governor, subject to confirmation by a
majority of the members of the legislature in joint
session, and may be removed as provided by law. They
shall be citizens of the United States. The board or
commission may appoint a principal executive officer when
authorized by law, but the appointment shall be subject
to the approval of the governor.]
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG invited Mr. Baldwin forward again.
MR. BALDWIN commented he is pained because he does not know the
answer to this. He referred to the constitutional language, "The
board or commission may appoint a principal executive officer when
authorized by law, but the appointment shall be subject to the
approval of the governor." Mr. Baldwin said he thinks there is
some concern about whether the reference to "principal executive
officer" would cover a chairmanship. He reiterated he does not
know the answer.
Number 0926
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted, then, they were skating on thin
constitutional ice, without further analysis. He asked if that
would be a fair assessment.
MR. BALDWIN indicated he agreed and needed further time.
MR. WILCOX requested that staff be given an opportunity to get a
legal opinion from legislative counsel.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO said he would appreciate and accept that
recommendation.
Number 0950
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated the amendment would be held in abeyance
until a legal opinion could be received. He questioned who would
take responsibility for the legal opinion.
MR. WILCOX offered to do so, noting this question has arisen
previously and he is probably the most familiar with it.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated a House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee substitute would be brought forward at the next meeting
on April 28. [HB 183 WAS HELD]
ADJOURNMENT
Number 0989
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG adjourned the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee meeting at 6:20 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|