Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/03/2001 08:05 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
April 3, 2001
8:05 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative John Coghill, Chair
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Hugh Fate
Representative Gary Stevens
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Harry Crawford
Representative Joe Hayes
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 198
"An Act relating to a post-retirement pension adjustment and
cost-of-living allowance for persons receiving benefits under
the Elected Public Officers Retirement System; and increasing
the compensation of the governor."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 193
"An Act relating to the primary election; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 193(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 103(FIN)
"An Act relating to election campaigns and legislative ethics."
- MOVED CSSB 103(FIN) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 93(FIN)
"An Act relating to the Arctic Winter Games Team Alaska trust;
and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSSB 93(FIN) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 167
"An Act relating to license plates for Alaska National Guard
personnel and for antique motor vehicles; relating to gold rush
license plates; and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 28
"An Act relating to the location of legislative sessions; and
providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 198
SHORT TITLE:GOV SALARY; PUB OFFICERS RETIREMENT COLA
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)HUDSON
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/19/01 0649 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/19/01 0649 (H) STA, FIN
03/19/01 0649 (H) REFERRED TO STATE AFFAIRS
04/03/01 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 193
SHORT TITLE:MODIFIED BLANKET PRIMARY ELECTION
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/19/01 0647 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/19/01 0647 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
03/19/01 0647 (H) FN1: (GOV)
03/19/01 0647 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
04/03/01 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: SB 103
SHORT TITLE:ELECTION CAMPAIGNS AND LEGISLATIVE ETHICS
SPONSOR(S): STATE AFFAIRS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/20/01 0432 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/20/01 0432 (S) STA, JUD
02/22/01 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
02/22/01 (S) Heard & Held
MINUTE(STA)
02/27/01 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
02/27/01 (S) Moved CS(STA) Out of
Committee
MINUTE(STA)
02/28/01 0534 (S) STA RPT CS 2DP 3NR NEW TITLE
02/28/01 0534 (S) DP: THERRIAULT, HALFORD; NR:
PHILLIPS,
02/28/01 0534 (S) PEARCE, DAVIS
02/28/01 0534 (S) FN1: (ADM)
03/09/01 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/12/01 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/12/01 (S) Moved CS(JUD) Out of
Committee
MINUTE(JUD)
03/13/01 0634 (S) JUD RPT CS 2DP 1DNP 1NR NEW
TITLE
03/13/01 0635 (S) DP: TAYLOR, COWDERY; DNP:
ELLIS
03/13/01 0635 (S) NR: THERRIAULT
03/13/01 0635 (S) FN1: (ADM)
03/13/01 0635 (S) FIN REFERRAL ADDED AFTER JUD
03/22/01 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE
532
03/23/01 0783 (S) FIN RPT CS 3DP 2NR NEW TITLE
03/23/01 0783 (S) DP: DONLEY, KELLY, LEMAN;
03/23/01 0783 (S) NR: HOFFMAN, OLSON
03/23/01 0783 (S) FN2: (ADM)
03/23/01 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE
532
03/23/01 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/28/01 (S) RLS AT 10:45 AM FAHRENKAMP
203
03/29/01 0858 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 2OR 3/29/01
03/29/01 0863 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
03/29/01 0863 (S) FIN CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
03/29/01 0863 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
03/29/01 0863 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB
103(FIN)
03/29/01 0864 (S) PASSED Y17 N2 A1
03/29/01 0867 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/29/01 0867 (S) VERSION: CSSB 103(FIN)
03/30/01 0782 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/30/01 0782 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
04/03/01 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: SB 93
SHORT TITLE:ARCTIC WINTER GAMES TEAM ALASKA TRUST
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) PHILLIPS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/15/01 0386 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/15/01 0386 (S) STA, FIN
02/20/01 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
02/20/01 (S) Moved Out of Committee
MINUTE(STA)
02/21/01 0451 (S) STA RPT 1DP 3NR 1DP/AM
02/21/01 0451 (S) NR: THERRIAULT, PEARCE,
DAVIS;
02/21/01 0451 (S) DP/AM: HALFORD; DP: PHILLIPS
02/21/01 0451 (S) FN1: ZERO(REV)
02/28/01 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE
532
02/28/01 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/13/01 (S) FIN AT 9:45 AM SENATE FINANCE
532
03/13/01 (S) Heard & Held
MINUTE(03)
03/13/01 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/14/01 0654 (S) FIN RPT CS FORTHCOMING 5DP
3NR
03/14/01 0654 (S) DP: DONLEY, AUSTERMAN, OLSON,
WILKEN,
03/14/01 0654 (S) LEMAN; NR: KELLY, HOFFMAN,
WARD
03/14/01 0655 (S) FN1: ZERO(REV)
03/15/01 0673 (S) CS RECEIVED SAME TITLE
03/16/01 0693 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 3/16/01
03/16/01 0694 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
03/16/01 0694 (S) FIN CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
03/16/01 0694 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
03/16/01 0694 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB
93(FIN)
03/16/01 0695 (S) PASSED Y15 N1 E3 A1
03/16/01 0695 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS
PASSAGE
03/16/01 0698 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/16/01 0698 (S) VERSION: CSSB 93(FIN)
03/16/01 (S) RLS AT 11:30 AM FAHRENKAMP
203
03/16/01 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
03/19/01 0645 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/19/01 0645 (H) STA, FIN
04/03/01 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 502
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HB 198.
FORMER GOVERNOR JAY HAMMOND
Lake Clark Lodge
Port Alsworth, Alaska 99653
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 198.
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR FRAN ULMER
P.O. Box 110015
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0015
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 193.
AVRUM GROSS, Chair
Primary Election Task Force
424 North Franklin Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 193.
SARAH FELIX, Assistant Attorney General
Governmental Affairs Section
Civil Division (Juneau)
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided legal information related to HB
193.
SENATOR GENE THERRIAULT
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 121
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of SB 103.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 103
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of SB 93.
SUSIE BARNETT, Administrator
Select Committee on Legislative Ethics
Alaska State Legislature
P.O. Box 101468
Anchorage, Alaska 99510-1468
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 103.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-31, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR JOHN COGHILL called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:05 a.m. Representatives
Coghill, Fate, Stevens, Wilson, Crawford, and Hayes were present
at the call to order. Representative James arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 198-GOV SALARY; PUB OFFICERS RETIREMENT COLA
Number 0112
CHAIR COGHILL announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 198, "An Act relating to a post-retirement
pension adjustment and cost-of-living allowance for persons
receiving benefits under the Elected Public Officers Retirement
System; and increasing the compensation of the governor."
Number 0149
REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON, Alaska State Legislature, came
forward to testify as sponsor of HB 198. He said HB 198
corrects a long-standing inequity in the retirement benefit
calculations for a group of public employees who retired between
January 1 and October 14, 1976. Every other person who has
retired under the Public Employees Retirement System or Teachers
Retirement system has received an automatic cost of living
adjustment in retirement benefits based on the consumer price
index. But there are about 35 people who retired under the
Elected Public Officers Retirement System (EPORS) who have never
received a single cost of living increase, and Representative
Hudson said that needs to be corrected. "It's basic fairness,"
he said. Now, an increase of about 40 percent is needed to make
up the difference.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said the second aspect of the bill is to
increase the governor's salary, which has not changed since
1983, when it was increased to $81,648. The intent at that time
was to set the governor's salary at a Range 30, Step F.
However, when the legislature set the dollar amount, that amount
took precedence over the salary schedule. Again, he said, the
issue is basic fairness. He noted that the governor's annual
salary now is less than that paid to his chief of staff, deputy
chief of staff, legislative director, or to a department
director.
CHAIR COGHILL indicated his intention to hear the testimony of
former Governor Jay Hammond that day and then to hold HB 198 for
further hearing and discussion on another day.
Number 0710
FORMER GOVERNOR JAY HAMMOND came forward to testify in support
of HB 198. He said he thinks a good case can be made for
correcting what has been largely an oversight. There has been
enormous erosion in the value of the retirement benefits he and
others receive. He cited a recent AARP report that over the
past 17 years, the price of goods bought by the general public
rose 73.9 percent while the price of goods bought by seniors
rose 85.1 percent. During that entire time, there has been no
change in retirement income for those who, like him, retired
under EPORS. His retirement salary, worth $80,000 when he
retired, is now worth $32,000 in today's dollars. His
retirement package provides a reduced benefit to his wife on his
demise. Her retirement income now would be worth roughly
$6,000, and as she could outlive him by 10-20 years, that income
will be worth "virtually nothing."
GOVERNOR HAMMOND explained that the problem is compounded
because the Elected Public Officials' Retirement System (EPORS)
was structured on a formula that adjusted retirement income in
relation to the current salary for the retiree's position.
Since there has been virtually no change in the governor's
salary ... since 1978, the governor's retirement income has
eroded much more than that paid to those who retired under the
Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS). The PERS employees
receive not only the cost of living increments that other state
employees receive, but also a 10 percent cost of living
differential for living in Alaska.
GOVERNOR HAMMOND acknowledged that for any increase to be
palatable to the public, it has to be at reasonable expense,
equitable, and politically acceptable. He did not know exactly
what the cost might be, but said he thought it could be cut
substantially if the legislature were to limit eligibility to
those who are at least 70 years old or to those who have not
received a cost-of-living adjustment for at least 10 years. He
thought most people would readily accept the fact that some
adjustment might be appropriate for anybody who hasn't received
a cost of living increase in 10 years.
GOVERNOR HAMMOND said he frankly thinks there ought to be
adjustments across the board in regard to "all sorts of things,"
although HB 198 probably wouldn't be the appropriate vehicle for
doing all of it. He noted that there are three co-equal branches
of state government. "You would think, then, that the heads of
those co-equal branches would be similarly compensated," he
observed. Yet the basic judge's salary is $112,000, and "it
seems to me at the very minimum the governor ought to get
roughly the same as a judge," he said. He also thinks
legislators, who serve one-third of the year, ought to have
their salaries boosted to one-third of $112,000.
GOVERNOR HAMMOND said he believes it would be possible to
increase the governor's salary in the manner proposed by HB 198
without it costing the state one nickel. "All you would have to
do is say, all right, the governor's salary goes to $110,000 [as
per HB 198] provided, however, we're going to charge him $30,000
for room and board and the use of a free vehicle." That would
not increase the impact on the state budget at all, he said. He
also suggested adjusting the legislative budget so a legislator
could take the $6,000 expense accounts as an addition to his or
her salary. The same might be done with the per diem allowance,
which some people are reluctant to draw. "As a consequence
you've got an inequity among how you people are compensated," he
noted. "I think to remove some of these inequities and create
something that treats everybody essentially the same is well
warranted," he said. "And I think it would be well-accepted by
the public." However, he said, he did not want to clutter up HB
198 by putting all those elements into it.
GOVERNOR HAMMOND said most people think the governor makes at
least $100,000 or $120,000, and "they're appalled to find out
that it's much less than hundreds if not thousands of public
employees," he said. "Anything you can do to remedy this will
be gratefully appreciated by all involved."
CHAIR COGHILL said according to Representative Hudson, there are
35 people who would be affected by HB 198.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON expressed hope that HB 198 could be moved
forward soon, noting that there are less than six weeks
remaining in the session.
CHAIR COGHILL suspended the hearing and testimony on HB 198.
HB 193 - MODIFIED BLANKET PRIMARY ELECTION
Number 1527
CHAIR COGHILL announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 193, "An Act relating to the primary election;
and providing for an effective date." He declared a brief at-
ease to allow people to shake hands with Governor Hammond. The
meeting resumed three minutes later.
Number 1574
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR FRAN ULMER came forward to testify on HB
193. She began by explaining why legislation is required.
Alaska, like Washington and California, had a "blanket primary"
system, one in which all of the candidates for all of the
parties appear on a single ballot and a voter can pick and
choose among them. Last summer, the United States Supreme Court
in a California case ruled that any state with a blanket primary
must modify it if any of the political parties objected to non-
party members voting on their candidates. The Republican Party
of Alaska requested that only Republicans and undeclared
nonpartisans be allowed to vote on their candidates, so the
lieutenant governor last summer promulgated emergency
regulations to govern the 2000 primary election. Those
emergency regulations went out of existence as soon as the
primary election was over, creating a need for legislative
action to decide how Alaska's primary system is to operate. In
order to make a recommendation to the legislature, she created a
task force made up of four former lieutenant governors, two
former attorneys general, and a representative of the League of
Women Voters. That group arrived at a unanimous consensus
position, on which HB 193 is based. Avrum Gross, former
attorney general under Governor Hammond, served as chair of the
task force.
Number 1791
AVRUM GROSS, Chair, Primary Election Task Force, came forward to
testify. He observed that the committee members brought
together about 400 years of political experience. The task
force was strictly nonpartisan. It proceeded under the
assumption that it had to come up with something because Alaska
no longer has a law governing primary elections and something
has to be put in place. The task force first heard
presentations from the state, then held public hearings in which
all major and minor parties in Alaska participated. The task
force then drafted a law with which all its members agreed.
MR. GROSS said the basic principal used in drafting was to
change the law as little as possible from what had existed prior
to the Jones case. None of the parties objected to a blanket
primary so long as they could limit their primary if they saw
fit. The task force decided that when a party [for example, the
Republican Party] wished to limit participation in its primary,
all registered Republicans would receive a ballot with all the
candidates on it. Everyone else would get a ballot with
everybody on it except Republicans, so the Republican Party
would be able to limit participation in its primary to
registered Republicans
MR. GROSS said the task force also concluded that party members
could still vote for candidates in other parties so long as
those parties allowed it. In doing so, the task force retained
the concept of a blanket primary unless that primary was
narrowed by party choices. That is consistent with the Jones
case and with Alaska's past practice.
Number 2067
MR. GROSS explained that the committee substitute approaches
from a different direction. The CS starts off with all closed
primaries. The only people who will get a party's primary
ballot will be registered members of that party. But any party
can, through its own party rules, open its primary to more
people. The task force took the other approach because it
thought the majority of Alaskans would favor a blanket primary
system insofar as possible.
Number 2186
MR. GROSS said the task force took testimony and set a deadline
by which the parties must be decide who is going to participate
in their primaries. September of the preceding year was
unanimously accepted. The task force also decided the deadline
for registration in a party would be 30 days before the election
[the last day on which people can register to vote].
Number 2301
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Mr. Gross why he had identified the
task force as nonpartisan.
MR. GROSS said he wanted the committee to understand that the
proposal [HB 193] had not come from any particular party
viewpoint.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES interpreted that to mean the task force had
come at the task from an administrative position, not from a
party position.
MR. GROSS affirmed that was correct.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said the outcome reflected that perspective
as opposed to what it might have been if determined by political
parties. She asked if a person who is not a party member could
file for office.
MR. GROSS said such a person could do so by petition.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES surmised that if more than one candidate
did so, they would not compete in the primary. It appears to
her that primaries are specifically for parties to choose their
candidates, and if there were not parties choosing their
candidates, there would be no need for a primary.
MR. GROSS thought that was probably true.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted that people who are not party members
rarely run for public office and that half of Alaska's voters
are not party members. She thinks the state is missing a large
group of folks who might be good office holders and have a good,
balanced approach. "As long as we continue to make the party
worth nothing, we are going to have more and more people who
never run for election," she said.
Number 2495
MR. GROSS said the task force had discussed Representative
James' concern and came to the conclusion that, "This in the end
will probably weaken parties more than anything we can think of.
The reason it will weaken parties is because [almost] every
party that testified ... indicated that it would probably allow
independents to participate in its primaries but would not allow
registered members of other parties to participate." He said
the result is that the only people who are going to be able to
vote for all the candidates are going to be independents. Polls
show that the vast majority of Alaska voters consider themselves
to be independents, he said. The parties have the option of
closing their primaries to all but registered members. The
problem with that is, "The more you close your party's primary,
the purer your candidates become and the less likely they are to
win general elections . . . . The reason that most parties
welcome independents into their parties is because they realize
that at some point or another they're going to have to get the
independents to vote for them to win a general election," he
said. Mr. Gross pointed out that this could result in many
people leaving parties. So long as parties are going to allow
independents to participate in their process and not allow
people from other parties, then the only way a citizen can vote
for everybody is to be an independent.
Number 2627
CHAIR COGHILL said one of the reasons he brought forward the CS
was to give the parties a choice rather than making the choice
for them.
MR. GROSS clarified that HB 193 allows parties to eliminate
independents from voting in their primaries. "You're coming at
it by saying you start with parties and they have to add
independents. We've started by saying there's everybody and you
have to eliminate independents."
CHAIR COGHILL said, "I think that's a public perception of
exclusion rather than inclusion, ... and that's why I came to
that policy call."
Number 2652
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS observed that if there were a
proliferation of parties, the state could end up with a lot of
ballots. He asked if that was going to be a problem.
Number 2586
MR. GROSS said there are now six political parties and there
could be a maximum of six ballots, one for each party. "By
insisting on a blanket primary insofar as possible, what we were
saying was that the party can decide who can vote for its
candidates but it can't decide who its members may vote for," he
said.
Number 2755
CHAIR COGHILL observed that there is a cost involved in having
parties exclude people from their ballots.
MR. GROSS agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS expressed concern that there are six
parties now, but no restriction on the number that could come
into being.
MR. GROSS said there is a limit; a party needs to have a three
percent vote in the prior gubernatorial election.
CHAIR COGHILL thought the cost would be around $50,000 for a
party to exclude others under the task force plan.
Number 2805
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS saw the proliferation of parties as a
real danger in the future.
MR. GROSS said one has to start with the premise that parties
constitutionally have the right to do this. "There's nothing we
can do about that. The Supreme Court has ruled. So if each
party has rules about who may nominate its candidates, some way
you're going to have to accommodate that."
CHAIR COGHILL said the task force tried to keep the primary as
open as possible, and he thinks the policy call that has to be
made "is whether we're doing it for exclusion for inclusion."
Number 2872
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD asked if a nonpartisan primary had been
considered.
MR. GROSS said it was considered and had a lot of appeal at
first. Everyone who wanted to run would file and the two top
vote-getters would face one another in a runoff, regardless of
party. Louisiana is the only state that does it that way. The
problem with it is that the two best candidates do not emerge
from the field, but when there are 12 or 14 people running for
an office, "a dedicated group of followers is all you really
need to make it into the finals," he said. "You don't
necessarily get candidates who represent the majority. You tend
to get very well organized, extreme groups." The task force
rejected the idea of a nonpartisan primary because it does not
produce two candidates who represent major, differing points of
view.
TAPE 01-31, SIDE B
Number 2948
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR ULMER spoke to the number of ballots. Under
the CS, there potentially would be six ballots, one for each of
the six recognized parties. Under the original bill, there
potentially would be seven ballots. The seventh ballot would
include all of the candidates from all of the parties and only
nonpartisan voters would get it [just like the old blanket
primary ballot], assuming that all the party rules allowed
nonpartisans to vote for their candidates. Looking at the
fiscal difference between the CS and the original version, it's
really just one more ballot. In terms of the public policy
call, "it is really just a question ... of your philosophy about
primaries," she said. The primary traditionally has been viewed
as the parties' opportunity to decide who their nominees would
be. It used to be done by convention until most states chose to
open up the convention process to a more democratic system. She
said that in states like Alaska, where over 50 percent of the
voters register as undeclared or nonpartisan:
It seems like disenfranchising over 50 percent of the
voters ... in the primary process may not be the most
democratic system. That's the tradeoff here. How
much do you allow just the party to determine its own
nominees and how much do you allow independents
nonpartisans, undeclareds to also participate in that
party process? And as long as the party says we want
them in, it seems to me we ought to allow that.
Whether you set it up as an opt-in or opt-out as long
as the party rules control, it's a shade of gray, I
guess. The shade of gray that the task force chose
was the shade of gray of saying assume everybody's in,
reflecting a longstanding tradition in Alaska of the
blanket primary. What the task force tried to so was
stay as close to existing law only change it enough to
accommodate the Jones decision as opposed to changing
it more dramatically.
Number 2790
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR ULMER added that the task force had settled
on the September deadline for notifying the state of party rules
because the parties said they would know by May or June at the
latest what those rules were going to be, and September gives
the Division of Elections sufficient time to make the necessary
changes on ballots and programming.
Number 2722
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if under the original bill, the
Republicans were the only ones who close their primary, how many
ballots there would be.
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR ULMER said two. Republicans, independents,
and nonpartisans would get one ballot [with everyone on it] and
everybody else would get the blanket ballot [listing all
candidates except Republicans]. The task force thought it was
better to err on the side of allowing individuals the right to
vote to the fullest extent possible.
Number 2600
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES wondered why the state pays for a primary
if it is a function of the parties. He thinks if a party wants
to exclude a large number of voters from its process, that party
should pay for its primary election.
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR ULMER explained that the state has an
interest in fair and open elections at both the primary and
general stage. In general, states moved from a convention
system, which was totally controlled by parties, to a primary
system because of the notion that opening up the nomination
process opens up the democratic election process. She said
Sarah Felix, Assistant Attorney General, could describe cases in
other states that have raised related questions.
Number 2487
CHAIR COGHILL passed the gavel to Representative Fate.
Number 2446
SARAH FELIX, Assistant Attorney General, Governmental Affairs
Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law, came
forward to testify. She explained that Alaska would not be on
very firm ground if it were to require the political parties to
pay for the primary elections. There have been two United
States Supreme Court opinions and one federal appeals court
decision out of the Eighth Circuit that have addressed these
issues. The Supreme Court opinions are not directly on point
but suggest how the Supreme Court would address this issue.
MS. FELIX said in one case, Texas had tried to impose large
filing fees on candidates. The court struck that down, saying
it unduly burdened candidates' rights of freedom of association.
That ruling was similar to the one in the California v. Jones
case, which said if a state makes it very difficult for a
political party to participate in a primary, that state is
burdening their First Amendment associational rights. Ms. Felix
thinks making a party pay for a primary election would impose
that kind of burden.
MS. FELIX said the Eight Circuit Court case, Faulkner v.
Arkansas, the state had established a system that required a
primary and required the political parties to pay for it. The
Eighth Circuit Court struck that down. One of the parties in
that case had been unable to afford a primary election, so there
wasn't a primary for that party and it essentially dropped out
of the general election. "Given how the U.S. Supreme Court has
been viewing the primary system and given how they have been
affording political parties very broad rights," if Alaska were
to impose that kind of a system, Ms. Felix doubted that it would
stand.
Number 2497
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES said he understood the state's interest in
a general election, but not in the primary election if is the
method by which parties nominate their candidates. He thought a
party should be able to make its own rules and use a caucus or
any other method to determine its candidates. The state should
not have any involvement in that, but would come back into the
process for the general election where it does have a pressing
interest.
Number 2487
ACTING CHAIR FATE returned the gavel to Chair Coghill.
MS. FELIX said Representative Hayes is correct that the state
need not have a primary election. The task force considered
that option, but chose to hold a primary because they thought
doing so was more inclusive. The option is a policy question
open to the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
CHAIR COGHILL noted that HB 193 is to be considered by the House
Judiciary Standing Committee. He then brought forward the CS
for HB 193.
Number 2269
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES moved to adopt the proposed CS for HB 193
[Version C dated 3/28/01] as the working document before the
committee.
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES objected, saying that if Alaska is going to
have a primary system, he wants to make it as open as possible.
He understands the CS to say that voters would have to declare
their party affiliation 30 days before the primary.
CHAIR COGHILL said that would be true in either version. He
thought the CS was closer to what Representative Hayes
preferred. It says the primaries are presumed closed until they
are opened by the parties. By contrast, the original task force
version is that the primaries are open unless somebody excluded
them.
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES said what the CS is saying that in the
Republican closed primary, there would be Republican candidates
and everybody else.
CHAIR COGHILL said it would be up to the party to include people
beyond Republicans if they so chose, and the CS gives them the
option to do that.
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES said he is more comfortable with the
original HB 193 because he thinks it more closely matches what
he heard from the public.
CHAIR COGHILL said that was a point well taken; that there is no
doubt that this is a policy call.
Number 2099
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON recalled that in both the original HB 193
and the CS, voters had to register 30 days in advance of an
election. She asked the lieutenant governor if in the last
election [in which voters were allowed to change their
registration up to and including election day], many people
switched.
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR ULMER said a few had switched, but that
there had not been a huge shift.
Number 2027
A roll call vote on the motion to adopt Version C as the working
document was taken. Representatives Fate, James, Stevens,
Wilson, and Coghill voted for CSHB 193. Representatives Crawford
and Hayes voted against CSHB 193. Therefore, CSHB 193 was
before the committee by a vote of 5 to 2.
Number 1933
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON moved conceptual Amendment 1 to change
CSHB 193 in accordance with the lieutenant governor's and the
task force's recommendation:
Page 2, line 5,
Delete "November 1"
Insert "September 1".
There being no objection, it was so ordered and Amendment 1 was
adopted.
Number 1888
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated for the record that she strongly
believes in the two-party system. Her personal preference would
be for only party people to vote for party candidates. If that
were the case, she thinks a lot of unaffiliated voters would
join the parties, and that would please her a lot. She said she
supports the CS "mostly because it makes parties, makes
positions, and the other way doesn't necessarily."
Number 1613
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said:
I believe the direction we're heading is to close the
primary, to make people become more partisan. I
believe that it's going to take the political center
away. I believe that we're going to have more
candidates from the radical right or the radical left
and I believe that it's the wrong direction to take
Alaska politics because I believe that the center is
much more inclusive.
Number 1568
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS sought clarification of the number of
ballots that would be possible under the CS and wanted to know
if it changes the requirement that voters register 30 days
before the election.
CHAIR COGHILL said the CS still includes the requirement to
register 30 days in advance and, as the lieutenant governor
said, the CS probably has one less ballot than what would be
required under the original HB 193. He did not like the air of
exclusion of the original.
Number 1464
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR ULMER corrected a previous statement she had
made. There could be either six or seven ballots under either
HB 193 or CSHB 193, depending on party rules. Both give power
to the parties to determine their candidates. One says the
primary is open unless it is closed, and the other says the
primary is closed unless it is opened.
Number 1387
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES expressed appreciation for the comments of
Representative James. His biggest fundamental problem is that
if the parties want that much control over the nominating
process, then why should the state be involved? Why should the
state foot the bill to allow a party to nominate who it wants?
He thinks the state's interest is in the general election.
CHAIR COGHILL said he agreed and that that was a separate policy
question. He invited Representative Hayes to bring forward a
bill to that effect and promised to give it a hearing.
Number 1316
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES agreed with Representative Hayes. She said
the party caucus is no longer used by either party. "The caucus
is the basic premise, the grass roots of party activism," she
said. "That's when within your precinct you get the people to
come together and discuss the issues, you discuss the platform,
... you get that grass roots effort" [which shapes the party],
she said. She indicated willingness to co-sponsor with
Representative Hayes a bill calling for party caucuses.
Number 1193
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said he thinks the CS is more about
appearances, that it is trying to guard against the appearance
of being a closed party as opposed to an open party.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON observed that things may have evolved the
way they have in Alaska because the state is so vast.
Number 1103
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES moved to report CSHB 193, as amended, out
of the House State Affairs Standing Committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD objected because he thinks the CS
eliminates many people from the process and he opposes the CS
because it is exclusionary rather than inclusionary.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Fate, James,
Stevens, Wilson, and Coghill voted for CSHB 193 as amended.
Representatives Crawford and Hayes voted against CSHB 193 as
amended. Therefore, CSHB 193(STA) was reported from the House
State Affairs Standing Committee.
SB 103-ELECTION CAMPAIGNS AND LEGISLATIVE ETHICS
Number 0958
CHAIR COGHILL announced the next order of business would be CS
FOR SENATE BILL NO. 103(FIN), "An Act relating to election
campaigns and legislative ethics."
Number 0925
SENATOR GENE THERRIAULT, Alaska State Legislature, came forward
to testify as sponsor of SB 103. He said SB 103 contains a
number of clarification and cleanup items related to the
existing Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) and ethics
statutes.
SENATOR THERRIAULT spelled out the changes:
· Section 1 clarifies that multiple groups controlled by a
single candidate will be treated as a single group for
purposes of the contribution limit.
· Section 2 adds thank-you advertisements to the list of
permissible uses of unused campaign funds.
· Section 3 increases the value of personal property that may
be retained by a candidate. The current law allows office
materials such as a computer, stationery, and stamps worth
a total of $2,500 to be carried forward to the next
campaign; SB 103 increases that amount to $5,000. It also
permits a candidate to keep a bulk mail permit used in one
campaign to use in the next campaign. It sets the value of
campaign signs at zero so they can be carried forward.
· Section 4 provides that money held by public entities may
be used to influence the outcome of a ballot proposition or
question under limited circumstances.
· Section 5 clarifies and further defines contributions,
saying that accountants and attorneys can volunteer their
services.
· Section 6 adds new exceptions to and clarifies the
prohibition on use of public assets and resources by
legislators and legislative employees for nonlegislative
purposes and certain previously prohibited public political
used.
Number 0170
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked for clarification of Section 5.
SENATOR THERRIAULT directed attention to page 4, line 22.
TAPE 01-32, SIDE A
SENATOR THERRIAULT acknowledged that the drafting was confusing,
but said the meaning is that accountants and attorneys can
volunteer their professional services and there is no limit on
those contributions of services.
Number 0090
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD asked if he had a volunteer come in and
do computer work on his mailing list, would that be compensated
time or not under SB 103.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said that individual would be able to
volunteer his or her time. The change SB 103 is making is that
a professional person, specifically an accountant or an
attorney, can volunteer his or her time and not be restricted by
the hourly rate that they generally charge and coming up against
a monetary limit.
Number 0255
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES still had concern about professional
services, specifically what was meant by "other professional
services" besides accounting and legal services.
SENATOR THERRIAULT consulted with staff regarding Representative
Crawford's question about a person contributing computer
services. He clarified that a computer professional's
contribution would be capped at a certain value, but that SB 103
specifically exempts accountants and attorneys from that limit.
Number 0377
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD understood that to mean that the
accountant he paid to help him with his APOC report could have
volunteered those services.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said that was correct.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES still had concerns about the professional
services, which she wished to look into further.
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES said he understood the exemption for
accounting services, but did not see a distinction between an
attorney and a computer person helping a campaign.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said it had seemed to the Senate that after a
campaign, a candidate might need accounting services because of
the [APOC] reports, and might need legal services if there were
a recount. At that time, campaign funds might be exhausted and
if professionals were willing to donate those services, it could
be appropriate. "It was a policy call," he added.
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES asked if the only purpose of the provision
was for recounts. He thought a candidate could use the party's
attorney for that. He expressed concern because he did not
understand the point of it.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said it is a policy call for the legislature
to consider. With respect to Representative James' question
about professional services, the prohibition against the
computer person already exists in statute.
Number 0617
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said he had been through a recount. His
opponent had a couple of attorneys who came in as volunteers.
He questioned at the time whether that was legitimate, and was
told this was "after the fact of the campaign" and under the
present law did not have to be counted as a contribution. He
did not see in SB 103 any limitation to recounts. If a
candidate were to violate campaign finance laws and needed an
attorney, it seemed to him that person would be able to get an
attorney to volunteer the time, and that didn't seem quite
right.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said Representative Crawford was absolutely
right. It is not just the recount issue. If somebody
challenged a candidate's residency or said the candidate had
violated an APOC ruling, the candidate would be allowed to use
the volunteered services of an attorney. It is a policy call
for the legislature to decide if it wishes to allow that type of
assistance.
Number 0745
REPRESENTATIVE FATE said he understands this provision to apply
not just to a candidate, but also to the political party. He
asked if that was allowed only during a campaign.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT said an attorney or accountant would
be able to volunteer his or her services at any time.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE recalled times during campaigns when the use
of an attorney by any political party had been so excessive that
it far exceeded the amount that otherwise could have been
donated. He mentioned the last gubernatorial campaign, during
which APOC discovered problems that candidates had to contest,
"and it was very expensive," he said. "I think this is a good
approach to solving that problem."
SENATOR THERRIAULT noted that Brooke Miles of APOC was on the
teleconference line and might wish to comment on that section.
Number 0842
SENATOR THERRIAULT continued:
· Section 5: A portion of Section 5 deals with the party's
advocating for its slate of candidates. It is limited to
two or fewer mass mailings before each election. It also
says that a candidate can release polling information as
long as the poll was limited to issues and did not mention
the candidate and was not taken at the direction of the
candidate. The last portion of Section 5 deals with
communications in the form of a newsletter from a
legislator to constituents, and indicates that incumbents
can send out those newsletters and not count the cost as a
contribution to that incumbent's campaign.
· Section 6 deals with communications by groups to their
membership, such as a union newsletter or a corporate
newsletter. If the cost of such a normal mailing to
members of the group is $500 or less, it is not considered
a campaign contribution.
· Section 7 concerns the use of legislative offices, changing
the allowable period of time from five days before and
after the session to ten.
· Sections F through J are activities already permitted
through internal advice or formal rulings of the Ethics
Committee, and the change is just codifying those sections.
Also, on page 9 are two sections on ethics that appear in
statute in other places, so this is just making
corresponding change.
CHAIR COGHILL asked about the extended use of office space at
the beginning and end of session.
SENATOR THERRIAULT explained that right now, legislators are
permitted to utilize their offices if they wish to do so, and
the change is just broadening that period of time by five days
at either end of the session, increasing the total number of
days from 130 to 140.
Number 1087
SENATOR THERRIAULT said Section 9 had been added by the Senate
Finance Committee. It allows a gift of transportation from one
legislator to another. "It clarifies that if I was going
hunting with Representative Coghill, ... he could fly me out to
the hunting camp; that would be allowed." he explained. "Or if
Representative Coghill was going to fly down to Mat-Su to
participate in some function ..., I could catch a ride with him
if he was flying a personal plane."
Number 1170
CHAIR COGHILL observed that time was short, and "there's a lot
of stuff in here."
Number 1197
SUSIE BARNETT, Administrator, Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics, testified by teleconference. She said she and the
committee chair, Dennis "Skip" Cook, were in general concerned
about amendments to the ethics code that have a piecemeal
effect. "The ethics code is becoming more and more disjointed
over the years as it gets amended and more difficult for
legislators and legislative employees to comprehend," she said.
"So I guess we are urging caution, and if there are amendments,
to please ensure that they are brought in and tied from one
section to another."
MS. BARNETT said they also are concerned that disclosure
required by the ethics code not only benefit the public, but
also help legislators and legislative employees in evaluating
the influences, gifts, and commitments of those in the
legislative branch. "And so on that note, we recommend adding a
disclosure requirement to the subsection just referenced by
Senator Therriault which is on page 11, subsection 9, ... lines
8-12, ... [requiring] disclosure if the value is over $250."
CHAIR COGHILL asked her to repeat her recommendation.
MS. BARNETT said they recommend adding a gift disclosure
requirement if the value of the gift of transportation is valued
at more than $250. It would still be allowable; there wouldn't
be a cap on it. "It's just that once it kicked in at $250, much
like any of our other gift disclosures, you would need to file a
disclosure report. I haven't prepared an amendment to that
because ... Terry Cramer of Legal is the one who can tie all the
pieces together. There are several sections in the ethics code
that refer to disclosure," she said.
Number 1369
SENATOR THERRIAULT told the committee that the change allowing
gifts of transportation was a policy call, and that he was
amenable to whichever way they want to look at it. "There's the
full gamut of not requiring it [disclosure], just saying it's
allowable; requiring disclosure just to the Select Committee on
Legislative Ethics ("Ethics Committee"); or requiring public
disclosure," he said. Senate Finance chose to not have any
disclosure, ... [but] "if the [House State Affairs] committee
wants to consider one of those methods of disclosure, that would
be certainly within your purview."
Number 1440
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked, "Are we assuming that this little
trip that you made out hunting was because the two of you are
friends or because you're a legislator and he is a supporter?"
SENATOR THERRIAULT acknowledged that would be hard to determine.
"We're clearly not allowing Representative Coghill, if he had a
plane, to fly me ... from village to village during a campaign.
Currently under the law, if there is a hearing going on in
McGrath on predator control and Coghill was going to fly out
there, I could go because it would be a gift for a specific
legislative purpose. But now when we're getting into the area
of just going hunting or maybe he ... just wants to fly me out
around the Tanana Valley ... to show off his new plane, that's
what we're really clarifying is that area, and I guess what Ms.
Barnett is asking that if we allow that to happen, that we at
least have some kind of tracking or disclosure on it."
MS. BARNETT confirmed that was, correct, adding, "It's just that
it needs to be tied into our disclosure section, but it would
only affect this particular disclosure."
Number 1585
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES proposed adopting that disclosure as a
conceptual amendment [Amendment 1]. There being no objection,
Amendment 1 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES asked if the committee was going to hold SB
103 for further discussion.
CHAIR COGHILL noted that SB 103 had been noticed in another
committee and declared his intent to send the conceptual
amendment to the drafter and the bill to the next committee of
referral. "It's my intention to go ahead and move on this
issue," he said. "I think it's unfortunate the time is short,
but that's going to be true now probably until the end of
session. We're going to have to make sure we stay as concise as
possible. I've ried to do that and still allow for as much
public discussion as possible. At this point though, we've come
to the time where we must either act or fold."
Number 1650
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES said if the committee was going to act, he
would like to make one more conceptual amendment [Amendment 2]:
Page 5, line 26,
Delete "other than legal"
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES objected.
A roll call vote was taken on Amendment 2. Representatives
Crawford and Hayes voted for Amendment 2. Representatives Fate,
James, Stevens, Wilson, and Coghill voted against Amendment 2.
Therefore, Amendment 2 failed by a vote of 5 to 2.
Number 1734
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if the disclosure required by Amendment
1 was disclosure to the Ethics Committee alone or public
disclosure. "That does need to be clarified," he said. pointing
out that the Ethics Committee receives some information that is
simply tracked by the committee but not disclosed to the public.
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES said he would feel more comfortable with
public disclosure.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES objected, saying disclosure to the Ethics
Committee was fine, but that public disclosure was going too
far.
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES responded, "I will keep it as is and we can
vote."
SENATOR THERRIAULT clarified that Representative Hayes'
amendment called for disclosure to the Ethics Committee and that
the information disclosed would be public.
Number 1829
REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked Senator Therriault for further
clarification. "What is going to be disclosed? Is it going to
be the total concept of any time that you associate yourself
with an elected official?" he asked.
SENATOR THERRIAULT referred to page 11, lines 8-12, saying the
disclosure requirement applied specifically to a gift of
transportation from one legislator to another worth at least
$250.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE observed that a gift of transportation could
be almost anything, and some things between friends are
completely outside the realm of politics. "To bring this even
to the Ethics Committee is a stretch, but to bring it to the
public is really a stretch," he declared.
Number 1912
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS said he would have problems with this,
too. "It includes if you came to Kodiak and I took you halibut
fishing, how do we figure out what the cost of that is?" he
asked. "If you were to go on a charter, it could easily exceed
$250, but ... it's just a silly thing, I can't see us even
getting involved in that. I'm against the whole issue."
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD volunteered, "If I went to Kodiak I'd
certainly want the halibut trip if I could get Representative
Stevens to take me, but ..."
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS interjected, "It's coming back that's the
problem, Sir." REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD continued, "... but also
I think we could be opening a can of worms here. Using Senator
Olson as an example just because he has a plane, he could take a
person of his choosing around to different villages and it could
be just friendly, but it could run into thousands of dollars
worth of campaign contributions by the amount of travel that he
might give. I certainly think that we need to have public
disclosure of that sort of thing."
Number 1993
SENATOR THERRIAULT pointed out that this section of statute
deals specifically with ethics. In addition, there are the
Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) statutes. If Senator
Olson was flying somebody around during a campaign and they were
meeting with officials, that would be campaigning, and those
contributions of transportation would all be disclosed and
limited under APOC, he said.
Number 2026
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD expressed concern about whether
traveling to "all these different villages in the off year"
would be considered campaigning. He pointed out that it could
be construed to help in a subsequent campaign even thought it
wasn't in the time immediately before an election.
SENATOR THERRIAULT replied that if the activity triggered the
existing APOC laws, that would all be disclosed and limited
under APOC. "We're just talking here about what is ethical for
you to receive from another legislator as far as
transportation," he emphasized. "The APOC statutes and their
triggers operate completely ... [apart] from this section of
statutes."
Number 2074
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON pointed out that private aircraft is about
the only way to get to many villages, and if somebody goes up
there to visit, that's how they're going to travel, and it's "no
big deal."
Number 2094
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES gave an example of Senator Olson going out
to a village because they're having a potlatch or a party:
It's not a campaign season, and Representative
Foster's relatives are out there, and he wants to go,
and Olson is going and ... [so Representative Foster]
gets in and goes. It has nothing to do with
campaigning; it has only to do with some personal
experience that you're having. That's what this
applies to, is that correct?
SENATOR THERRIAULT said that was correct.
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES said that to him, the issue boils down to
his thinking full disclosure to the public is not a bad thing.
CHAIR COGHILL called for another vote on the conceptual
amendment, Amendment 1, specifying that the disclosure of a gift
of travel would be made to the Ethics Committee and then to the
public.
A second roll call vote on Amendment 1 was taken.
Representatives Crawford Hayes voted for Amendment 1.
Representatives Fate James, Stevens, Wilson, and Coghill voted
against Amendment 1. Therefore, Amendment 1 failed by a vote of
5 to 2.
Number 2186
REPRESENTATIVE FATE moved to report CSSB 103(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS wished to clarify that the committee had
just dealt with amendments proposed in the House State Affairs
Standing Committee, and that [CSSB 103(FIN)] still included
Section 9 as proposed by Senator Therriault.
CHAIR COGHILL said that was correct.
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES objected.
CHAIR COGHILL said he was going to recess to the call of the
chair, but first wanted the committee to vote on CSSB 103(FIN).
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Fate, James,
Stevens, Wilson, and Coghill voted for CSSB 103(FIN).
Representatives Crawford Hayes voted against CSSB 103(FIN).
Therefore, CSSB 103(FIN) moved out of the House State Affairs
Standing Committee by a vote of five to two.
CHAIR COGHILL recessed the committee at 10:15 a.m., announcing
that it would reconvene immediately after the floor session to
take up SB 93.
[A new tape was inserted when the meeting was reconvened, and
therefore there is no recording on Tape 01-32, Side B.]
TAPE 01-33, SIDE A
SB 93 - ARCTIC WINTER GAMES TEAM ALASKA TRUST
Number 0001
CHAIR COGHILL reconvened the meeting of the House State Affairs
Standing Committee at 11:02 a.m. Representatives Fate, Stevens,
Crawford, and Hayes were present at the call to order.
CHAIR COGHILL announced that the next order of business before
the committee would be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 93(FIN), "An Act
relating to the Arctic Winter Games Team Alaska trust; and
providing for an effective date."
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS came forward to testify as sponsor of SB
93. He explained that it will establish an endowment fund to be
managed by the Department of Revenue. Anybody who wants to
contribute toward the endowment can do so, and that contribution
will be accepted. This bill, SB 93, sets up the technical
frameword under which the Department of Revenue will have the
authority to manage the fund.
CHAIR COGHILL invited any questions from the committee.
SENATOR PHILLIPS said the Arctic Winter Games Trust is being set
up in exactly the same way as the Alaska Children's' Fund.
There are no appropriations for it yet. "All I'm trying to do
is establish the endowment for now, and then later on we can
work on the appropriation for it," he explained.
CHAIR COGHILL asked if he knew of any contributions that would
immediately go into the trust.
SENATOR PHILLIPS replied that he did not know of any pending
contributions, and that it would be up to the Arctic Winter
Games Committee to begin raising funds. "This is just authority
to begin a trust," he reiterated. "This is not bringing any
money out of state at this point. This is just a framework
only. I want to make that abundantly clear."
Number 0260
CHAIR COGHILL noted that the Arctic Winter Games obviously have
captured the attention of Alaska.
Number 0286
SENATOR PHILLIPS replied, "I hope so. I think they have." The
next games will be held in Greenland in March of 2002, and the
state will be sending about 320 athletes. The fund is intended
to be invested to earn about five percent interest, capturing
proceeds from the investment, not spending any of the investment
fund, he explained.
Number 0301
CHAIR COGHILL said he would like to move SB 93 to the next
committee of referral, the House Finance Standing Committee.
What the House State Affairs Standing Committee is passing on to
them is a framework for them to work on. He asked the will of
the committee.
Number 0345
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS moved to report CSSB 93(FIN) out of the
House State Affairs Standing Committee with individual
recommendations and a zero fiscal note. There being no
objection, CSSB 93(FIN) was moved from the House State Affairs
Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 11:05
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|