Legislature(1993 - 1994)
04/14/1993 08:00 AM RES
* first hearing in first committee of referral
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE April 14, 1993 8:00 a.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Bill Williams, Chairman Representative Bill Hudson, Vice Chairman Representative Con Bunde Representative Pat Carney Representative Joe Green Representative Eldon Mulder MEMBERS ABSENT Representative John Davies Representative Jeannette James Representative Eldon Mulder OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT Representative Carl Moses COMMITTEE CALENDAR HB 230: "An Act relating to fees for commercial fishing licenses and permits." ADOPTED CSHB 230 (RES) AND PASSED FROM COMMITTEE WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION Board of Game Confirmations: A. Ruggles, R. Huntington, S. Entsminger, J. Didrickson, E. Polley ALL NAMES ADVANCED WITH INDIVIDUAL RECOMMENDATIONS WITH COMMITTEE REPORT AND LETTER OF EXPLANATION WITNESS REGISTER Representative Carl Moses Alaska State Legislature State Capitol, Room 204 Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182 Phone: 465-4451 Position Statement: Prime Sponsor, HB 230 Frank Homan, Commissioner Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission 8800 Glacier Highway, Suite 109 Juneau, Alaska 99801-8079 Phone: 789-6160 Position Statement: Responded to license term question on HB 230 Jerry Luckhaupt, Attorney Legislative Affairs Agency Division of Legal Services 130 Seward Street, Suite 409 Juneau, Alaska 99801-2105 Phone: 465-2450 Position Statement: Responded to questions on legal aspects of appointments to the Board of Game Marjorie Odlund Assistant Attorney General Department of Law P.O. Box 110300 Juneau, Alaska 99801-0300 Phone: 465-3600 Position Statement: Responded to questions on legal aspects of appointments to the Board of Game PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: HB 230 SHORT TITLE: VESSEL FEES BILL VERSION: SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MOSES TITLE: "An Act relating to fees for commercial fishing licenses and permits." JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 03/15/93 649 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S) 03/15/93 649 (H) FISHERIES, RESOURCES, FINANCE 03/26/93 (H) FSH AT 08:30 AM CAPITOL 17 03/26/93 (H) MINUTE(FSH) 04/02/93 957 (H) FSH RPT CS(FSH) NEW TITLE 1DP 2NR 04/02/93 958 (H) DP: MOSES 04/02/93 958 (H) NR: PHILLIPS, OLBERG 04/02/93 958 (H) -FISCAL NOTE (F&G) 4/2/93 04/02/93 (H) MINUTE(FSH) 04/14/93 (H) RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124 ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 93-44, SIDE A Number 000 The House Resources Committee was called to order by Chairman Bill Williams at 8:25 a.m. Members present at the call to order were Representatives Williams, Hudson, Bunde, Carney, Green, and Finkelstein. Members absent were Representatives Davies, James and Mulder. CHAIRMAN BILL WILLIAMS announced the order of the meeting, with consideration of HB 230 first, followed by action on the confirmation of appointees to the Board of Game. HB 230: VESSEL FEES REPRESENTATIVE CARL MOSES, PRIME SPONSOR OF HB 230, told the committee that the fee structure for commercial fishing vessels proposed in the legislation was intended to make the fees equitable. He explained that currently, a flat $20 fee is charged for all vessels without regard to vessel size. The House Special Committee on Fisheries' substitute for HB 230 (CSHB 230 (FSH)) proposes a sliding fee scale, based on the length of the vessel, so that larger boats would be charged a higher fee, he informed. REPRESENTATIVE MOSES noted that the original version of HB 230 would have removed a cap that currently exists on annual commercial fishing license fees. Those fees are based, in limited entry fisheries, on the value of the permit, and in non-limited entry fisheries on the average or gross earnings. The current $750 cap has artificially kept permit fees down to $150 maximum for Alaska residents and $750 maximum for non-residents. REPRESENTATIVE MOSES explained that after the House Special Committee on Fisheries heard testimony from commercial fishermen on the potential impacts of that portion of HB 230, it was decided that the issue of fishing fees would be examined during the interim. He stated CSHB 230 (FSH) only addresses the vessel license fees and would generate approximately $600,000 in additional revenue to the state. The state's fisheries' management programs are losing ground to inflation and increasing complexity and value of fisheries, he added, and the legislation includes intent language that the additional funds generated by HB 230 would be used to enhance fisheries management and development programs. REPRESENTATIVE MOSES noted that CSHB 230 (FSH) has the support of the United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA). Number 101 REPRESENTATIVE PAT CARNEY referred to line 8 on page 1 regarding the payment of the license fee, and commented that the language there seemed unnecessary because of previous references to licensing for two years. He suggested deleting from the beginning of "20" on line 8, through "and" on line 9. Number 126 VICE CHAIRMAN BILL HUDSON asked whether there was a shift from one year to up to two years. REPRESENTATIVE MOSES stated that was not the intent, and said it had been "up to two years" previously. Number 146 VICE CHAIRMAN HUDSON commented that he had been approached by three commercial fishermen in Juneau who asked if legislation could be introduced to create a five-year license, paid in advance for that time period. The state would then have the revenues in the bank to draw interest from, with the idea being that the fishermen are in a commercial business and a five-year license would be less cumbersome to their commercial enterprises. He suggested this would be something to look into in the future, and not necessarily to consider as an addition to HB 230. NUMBER 160 REPRESENTATIVE MOSES noted that under the fee structure proposed in HB 230, most of the fishermen probably would not want to pay the fees for five years in advance. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any comments on Representative Carney's suggested language. REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY made a MOTION to delete language on line 8, beginning after "fee" to just before "and" on line 9. Number 170 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections to the motion. Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED. REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN suggested making the license fee time period optional so that those who wished to pay for a five-year license in advance could do so. Number 187 FRANK HOMAN, COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL FISHERIES ENTRY COMMISSION, said that the idea was something that would have to be researched before any recommendation could be made. REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE voiced concerns over the impact such a measure might have on administration of the fees. Number 200 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a MOTION to pass CSHB 230 (FSH) as amended with individual recommendations. He asked unanimous consent. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections. Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED. Number 220 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced that the committee would next take up the confirmations to the Board of Game. He explained that at the committee's previous meeting on April 7, attorneys from the Department of Law and the Legislative Legal Services' division explained their respective views on the legal issues surrounding the appointments of Jack Didrickson and Ernie Polley to the Board of Game. Having heard those legal opinions, he hoped the committee could now decide on the action they wished to take. Number 238 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said he would like to MOVE that the committee consider only Jack Didrickson be recommended for confirmation to the disputed seat. REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY noted that four of the appointees should be moved. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE agreed and said that was his intent, but because committee discussion had centered on Mr. Didrickson, he would like to start with him. Number 260 REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN commented that the confirmation decision would actually be made by the full membership of the House and Senate in joint session. He said the Resources committee recommendation was important but in the end, all five names would be available to the full body. Personally, he believed the committee should first dispose of the first name before them, then consider the next name the governor had put before the committee. Number 279 VICE CHAIRMAN HUDSON remarked that if Mr. Didrickson is the duly appointed nominee, as appeared to be the case, while the governor takes the position that only Ernie Polley's name should be put forward, then the committee's only option is to advance Mr. Didrickson's name for confirmation. He noted that this leaves the committee with the question of what to do about Mr. Polley. VICE CHAIRMAN HUDSON also suggested the committee send forward a letter or some record of the issues at hand as the basis for whatever decision is reached. He advised that Mr. Polley's name should not be construed as having been rejected for the seat. He said it was important that the possibility be left open for Mr. Polley to be appointed to a seat on the board in the future, or to Mr. Didrickson's seat if he is not confirmed. Number 320 JERRY LUCKHAUPT, ATTORNEY, DIVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES, explained that on the issue of Mr. Polley, he differed in opinion with the attorney general's office. He believed Mr. Polley's name was never properly before the legislature. He noted a rule that says when a name is properly before the legislature and is not confirmed, that person is not eligible for appointment to that board. That rule does not apply in the case of Mr. Polley, he explained. Mr. Polley would be eligible for reappointment, in his opinion. MR. LUCKHAUPT referred to the attorney general's opinion, stated at the previous meeting, which held that Mr. Polley's name was properly submitted and was before the legislature, so it would be viewed as a rejection were his name not taken up and confirmed. MR. LUCKHAUPT told the committee that regardless of what it does, any name the full House wants to consider will be considered and is eligible to be considered. Number 355 VICE CHAIRMAN HUDSON repeated his suggestion that the committee go along with Representative Bunde's motion to advance the name of Mr. Didrickson for confirmation, but also cover that action with a legal opinion explaining that Mr. Polley's name was not taken up and was not denied. This, he said, would leave open the possibility for Mr. Polley to be appointed to the board at another time. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS referred to a draft letter for that purpose prepared by committee staff, and asked for comments on that from Ms. Odlund of the Department of Law. Number 370 MARJORIE ODLUND, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, said her office is basically holding that Mr. Didrickson is not before the legislature at all to be acted on. Only Mr. Polley is properly put before the legislature for confirmation, she said. Mr. Didrickson, she said, was in a nomination status, which she said was not a vested right and, therefore, the removal for cause provisions do not apply. Any action taken on Mr. Didrickson, according to the Department of Law, would be a null and void action. Number 387 REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY commented that the best way to resolve the dispute would be for the committee to let both names go before the full body, as Representative Finkelstein had suggested. Number 394 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE understood that both names would go forward, but wanted to ensure that both names did not go forward with the committee members' endorsement. He felt the governor was trying to circumvent the process and he did not want to endorse that. He wanted it to be clear that only one person was properly before the committee, and that the other name was not. He suggested that because the attorneys representing the legislature held that the name properly before the legislature was that of Mr. Didrickson, the committee should heed that advice. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE noted that the attorney general's office had another client, the governor, whose interests they represent. He added that it was not his intent to reject Mr. Polley, which would be the effect of taking up Mr. Polley's name and not confirming him, but to act on the legal opinion in the best interest of the legislature. Number 408 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS explained to the committee that the letter of explanation would accompany the committee reports that go to the full body for confirmation. Number 413 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN differed in his agreement with the opinion of the respective attorneys. He said that if two attorneys present different views, ethics would not allow them to just find a rendering for their particular clients. Because there are two opposing legal views, the committee should not be bound to one of them just because the legislature happens to have an attorney who says it should be that way. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commented that the fact that the committee had Mr. Didrickson as a nominee, but he was never acted upon, does not place him in any higher position than Mr. Polley. If the committee moves only on Mr. Didrickson's name, he suggested that the letter of explanation accompanying the committee report include a minority view. He explained that this would be so the legislators considering confirmation on the floor would not be guided only by one opinion. Number 449 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN suggested the committee could make everyone satisfied with the process by voting on both names and then voting on the letter. While he did not necessarily agree with the opinion of the letter, he felt it represented a viewpoint well portrayed in committee. The minority view would be a good idea, he said. Number 460 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE, in respect to Representative Green's comments, said that the matter of who employs an attorney does have an effect on the legal opinion presented. The law is something reasonable people can disagree upon, he said, and added that the legal opinion from the legislative attorney does have the best interest of the legislature at heart. Number 471 REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY believed Mr. Didrickson had the advantage in that he had already been serving as a member of the Board of Game. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stressed the importance of the process, which is to have a nomination made by the governor and confirmed by the legislature. He felt that the committee's actions seemed to be saying to the governor that the legislature was taking exception to his wishes. If the governor nominates someone or temporarily fills a position, Representative Green said the governor should have the prerogative to withdraw that name and nominate someone else. Number 483 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS remarked that this discussion showed why the legislature has attorneys available to address these issues. He tended to agree with the legislative attorney, that Mr. Didrickson's name was before the legislature and his seat was not vacant for Mr. Polley to be appointed to. He added that the Constitution provides for protection of the board process so that a governor cannot play games by filling seats and then taking those individuals out before the legislature can act on confirmation. He pointed out the potential for abuse if a governor moves appointees on and off a board according to how they might vote on any individual issue. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked the committee to review the draft letter and discuss it. Number 510 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN commented that it was a good letter and an important part of the committee's deliberations. He said that once the committee had acted on the confirmations, it should also act on the letter. He did not share the legal opinion in the letter, but felt the letter was well-written and presents a good argument to present to the full body. VICE CHAIRMAN HUDSON remarked that the letter could be reduced. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN proposed a substantive change: Adding some acknowledgment at the end of the letter, that if Mr. Didrickson's name was turned down, then Mr. Polley's name could be considered for confirmation. Number 529 VICE CHAIRMAN HUDSON referred to a conversation he and the chairman had had with the governor, at which the governor took the position that his appointment of Mr. Didrickson was an interim appointment, and was never completed because the name was never submitted to the legislature. Vice Chairman Hudson suggested the letter should reflect the governor's stand. Number 536 REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY recommended that the committee members read the relevant statute carefully. He said the statute said simply that the governor makes the appointment, and that appointment is then subject to confirmation by the legislature. He noted that the statute did not say anything about interim appointments. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE remarked that this issue was not a discussion about the qualifications of the two individuals, but about the process for checks and balances. Number 550 VICE CHAIRMAN HUDSON reminded the committee that they could each write their individual opinions on the committee report, which would be read across at the time of the joint confirmation session. To the assistant attorney general, he asked what problems would be created if both names went to the full body, and then Mr. Didrickson was not confirmed but Mr. Polley was confirmed. Number 567 MS. ODLUND said this would not create a problem at all because this would create the outcome the attorney general's office advocated. VICE CHAIRMAN HUDSON noted that the legislative attorney had held the opinion that once Mr. Didrickson was appointed, that act constituted submission of the name to the legislature. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referred to the removal for cause provision, and asked whether it applied to a board member once confirmed, or after the appointment was made. Number 581 MR. LUCKHAUPT explained that it was his opinion that the removal provisions attach at the time an appointment is made. The Constitution, he said, does not say anything about nominations. In fact, he explained, the first draft of the Constitution at the Constitutional Convention included the language "nominate and appoint," with the idea that nomination was embodied in the Constitution. That language was taken out, he said, and the Constitution was left with the language applying only to appointment. MR. LUCKHAUPT referred also to Article III, Section 27, that was put into the constitution, which said the governor could make recess appointments, or appointments while the legislature was not in session. Those appointments, he said, are like any other appointment, except that they last as long as the legislature says they last. Alaska Statute 39.05.080, he added, was adopted by the legislature and says those appointments last until the person is confirmed or not confirmed. To apply the removal provisions just to those who have been confirmed by the legislature, he said, invites the potential for abuse. MR. LUCKHAUPT could see no distinction between when the appointing authority performs the last act by appointing the person, and the legislature's taking action by confirming or not confirming. The system contemplates an orderly progression of the governor appointing someone during the interim, that person taking office and being subject to the removal for cause provisions, and then the governor submitting the name to the legislature. He explained that his legal opinion has to do with what happens if the governor fails to submit the name. Number 620 MR. LUCKHAUPT cautioned that adopting the governor's view on this issue opens the potential for abuse of the process. He remarked that at the previous meeting, Barbara Blasco of the attorney general's office had admitted to the committee that there was the potential for abuse and that it was a very likely potential that if Mr. Polley was confirmed he would not be able to take office until the end of the legislative session. He concluded that those remarks had been in recognition of the argument that removal for cause provision attaches at the time of appointment. That recognition was a change in the attorney general's position from previous years, he added. MR. LUCKHAUPT stressed that it was important for the committee to know that the removal for cause provision was established to protect certain boards from political abuse or manipulation, and to create continuity. He reiterated that the provision does not apply to all boards, but it does apply to the Board of Game. Number 644 MS. ODLUND said the attorney general's office feels that until an appointee has a vested right in office, which would be after confirmation, he or she is nothing but a nominee. The removal for cause provision applies, she added, only to vested members of a board. Looking at the history of the Constitution, she said, it is clear that the power of the governor for board appointments is very broad. If the governor has not actively presented a nominee to the legislature, that interim appointee is not before the legislature, she stressed. MS. ODLUND urged the committee to concur with the attorney general's position that the removal for cause provision does not attach until a nominee is confirmed and vested as a member of the board. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked both attorneys if, in their reading of the statutes, there was any provision for temporary appointments, particularly to the game board. MR. LUCKHAUPT replied that there was no such thing that he was aware of. He remarked on a provision in the Constitution as well as in [AS] 39.05.080 which talks about interim appointments to all boards and commissions. He noted that it simply meant that the governor must be allowed to make appointments during the legislative interim. Number 675 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE then asked whether interim was also a synonym for "temporary" and not only a reference to the period when the legislature is not in session. MR. LUCKHAUPT explained that interim is used in the context of referring to the period between sessions of the legislature in recognition of the fact that appointments need to be made year round. If this provision was not there, he said, various boards and commissions might have to shut down for a part of the year while the legislature was not available to confirm new members. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked if there was any statutory provision which allowed the governor to do what he had done in the case of Mr. Didrickson and Mr. Polley. Number 686 MR. LUCKHAUPT answered that in his opinion, there was no statutory authority for the governor's removal of Mr. Didrickson from the board, effective April 5. He added that [AS] 39.05.080 is clear in saying the governor shall submit the names of those that were appointed who have not yet been confirmed. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE then addressed to Ms. Odlund the same question regarding statutory authorization of the governor. MS. ODLUND replied that in [AS] 39.050.080, any appointment made between sessions that has not been actively presented is an interim appointment by definition. Until that person is confirmed, she said, they can serve on a temporary status as a nominee only. She said the attorney general's office feels it is wrong to presume that [AS] 39.05.080(a) creates an automatic presentment simply because the governor has made an appointment. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked whether the question had arisen in other situations. TAPE 93-44, SIDE B Number 000 MS. ODLUND said it had not happened where the appointments had been made by one governor, but that there was an instance between Governor Cowper and Governor Hickel in an appointment to the Alaska Public Utilities Commission. Before Governor Cowper's appointee was confirmed, Governor Hickel replaced him with his own nominee, she explained. Number 020 MR. LUCKHAUPT noted that there had also been other instances between an outgoing and an incoming governor. He agreed that there is potential for abuse in that area. He also referred to the 1990 case where Governor Cowper made an appointment before leaving office which would not be confirmed until after the new governor took office. The attorney general's opinion on the question goes back to the Rod Pegues case in 1977 or 1979. Litigation had occurred in one case, where Michael Whitehead was appointed to the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission in the Hammond- Sheffield transition. The state settled that case in Mr. Whitehead's favor and paid him salary and damages. He noted that these cases can cost the state a lot of money if they go to court. Number 125 REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY commented that Mr. Didrickson had been serving as a member of the game board when he was asked to step down. When Mr. Didrickson realized that he was given no cause for his removal, and that by accepting that, he might be perceived as agreeing that he had done something wrong, he refused to step down voluntarily, Representative Carney said. If the legislature did not confirm Mr. Didrickson, he added, people might assume there was cause, and Mr. Didrickson's reputation and personal concerns should be considered. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE agreed that consideration should not be taken lightly. An overriding consideration, he said, was the checks and balances within state government. What happens in this instance would set a precedent for future behavior, he explained, and added that he sees the precedent in this case as being different from those cases where there were changes in appointments between an outgoing and an incoming governor. He did not favor sending both Mr. Didrickson's and Mr. Polley's names forward, because only one name is legally before the committee, and he did not want the committee to appear to be endorsing two candidates. REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY reminded the committee that there was a motion before them to move four names forward, and suggested it was time to vote on that motion. Number 180 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN suggested the committee take up the names of the appointees one at a time, because there was no legal problem with the other appointees. In the end, all the names would be taken up on the floor, but the recommendations of the committee, even if they are negative, will be before the full joint session. The choice before the committee members, he said, was whether they express their views on the issue of whose name is properly before the legislature through their votes on the committee report form, or through the letter drafted to accompany those committee reports to the floor. Number 219 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN planned to use his vote to indicate his views on individual people, and the letter as the committee's view on who is properly before the legislature. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE remarked that by voting on Mr. Polley, it would seem to be an endorsement of the view that his name is properly before the legislature, and he did not want to vote on Mr. Polley. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN reiterated that the letter lays out the committee's position on that process, so if the letter is supported, that position would be on record. Number 229 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS explained that what the committee would do would be to take up each committee report on the individual appointees separately. He read the text of the committee report, which indicated that the Resources committee considered the appointment of each member, and the recommendations of the committee members could be indicated by signing recommend, do not recommend, or no recommendation. He asked members if that process of taking up the names individually were acceptable to them. Number 239 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE AMENDED his MOTION to take up the names individually. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said the name of Anne Ruggles would be taken up first. VICE CHAIRMAN HUDSON MOVED that the name of Anne Ruggles be transmitted for consideration by the joint House and Senate with individual recommendations. He asked unanimous consent. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections. Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE MOVED that the name of Roger Huntington be advanced for confirmation to the Board of Game with individual recommendations. He asked unanimous consent. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections. Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED. VICE CHAIRMAN HUDSON MOVED to advance the name of Susan Entsminger for confirmation to the Board of Game with individual recommendations. He asked unanimous consent. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections. Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED. Number 269 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced the committee would next take up the name of Jack Didrickson for confirmation to the Board of Game. He asked the wishes of the committee. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE MOVED that the name of Jack Didrickson be advanced with individual recommendations. He asked unanimous consent. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections. Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED. VICE CHAIRMAN HUDSON MOVED to advance the name of Ernie Polley with individual recommendations, including the letter explaining the legal concerns of the committee. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN OBJECTED, noting that he felt sending the letter that way would bias the rest of the legislature who had not had the opportunity to hear the testimony of the attorneys who had explained their legal opinions. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN suggested the committee take up Mr. Polley's name first, and then act on the letter separately. VICE CHAIRMAN HUDSON AMENDED his MOTION to simply advance the name of Mr. Polley for confirmation to the Board of Game. Number 310 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections. Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS referred to the letter of explanation of the legal questions surrounding the appointments of Jack Didrickson and Ernest Polley to a position on the Board of Game. He noted that the letter is in conceptual draft form. He recommended that the letter be revised by committee staff to its final form by Friday, April 16. He asked if there was any discussion on the contents of the letter. Number 329 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN commented that the letter was well-written, but could be shortened somewhat. He noted that it clearly expressed one viewpoint, but added that he was not sure the whole committee agreed on that viewpoint. He felt the committee could vote on the letter now, as the conceptual basis for the final draft. He said the letter should reflect the majority and minority views of the committee. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked for a motion. VICE CHAIRMAN HUDSON MOVED to transmit the letter for the full consideration of the legislature with the committee reports on the Board of Game appointees. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked for clarification on whether the letter would constitute an endorsement by the full committee of the majority legal opinion. He noted that both he and Representative Green had differences of opinion with the view expressed in the letter. VICE CHAIRMAN HUDSON commented that given the differing legal views presented to the committee, the committee members could indicate their positions on the legal question when signing the committee reports, as he had. He noted that he had signed "do not confirm" on Mr. Didrickson's report, and on Mr. Polley's, he signed "confirm if he is legally before us." REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN remarked that the letter seemed to contradict what Vice Chairman Hudson said. The letter supports the view that only Mr. Didrickson's name is legally before the legislature, he explained. He said the letter should not be sent if it only reflects one view. Number 397 VICE CHAIRMAN HUDSON suggested the committee hold the letter until the next meeting in order to re-draft the letter to reflect what the legal dilemma is and that the committee members did not agree on which view was correct. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN noted that this would allow the whole legislative body to know the full legal question at stake. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS agreed that the letter could be revised to reflect the difference of legal opinions, for consideration on Friday, April 16, 1993. CHAIRMAN HUDSON suggested the letter from the committee could even have the two legal opinions attached when the letter is transmitted. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN agreed this might work, but the primary concern was that it be clear to the rest of the legislature what the two legal opinions are. Number 429 VICE CHAIRMAN HUDSON WITHDREW his MOTION to advance the letter with the confirmation committee reports. ANNOUNCEMENTS Number 432 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced that on Friday, April 16, the committee would hear HB 182 and HB 183, relating to a transportation corridor between Fairbanks and Nome. He also reminded committee members that on Saturday, April 17, from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., the committee would hold a statewide teleconference hearing to take public testimony on HB 238, the oil spill response fund bill sponsored by Representative Green. He told members copies of a draft committee substitute prepared by Representative Green for HB 238 were available for members' review. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the House Resources Committee, Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting at 9:35 a.m.