Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/19/2001 08:04 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 19, 2001
8:04 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative John Coghill, Chair
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Hugh Fate
Representative Gary Stevens
Representative Harry Crawford
Representative Joe Hayes
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Peggy Wilson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 192
"An Act relating to the Bristol Bay Salmon Classic; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 192 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 189
"An Act repealing statutory provisions relating to term limits
and term limit pledges."
- MOVED HB 189 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 170
"An Act relating to granting certain employees of the Department
of Fish and Game status as peace officers under the public
employees' retirement system."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 14
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to the budget reserve fund and to the Alaska heritage
fund; and providing for an effective date for the amendments.
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 192
SHORT TITLE:BRISTOL BAY SALMON CLASSIC
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)KAPSNER
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/19/01 0647 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/19/01 0647 (H) STA, FIN
04/19/01 1063 (H) STA RPT 6DP
04/19/01 1063 (H) DP: STEVENS, CRAWFORD, JAMES,
FATE,
04/19/01 1063 (H) HAYES, COGHILL
04/19/01 1063 (H) FN1: ZERO(REV)
04/19/01 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 189
SHORT TITLE:REPEAL TERM LIMITS/TERM LIMITS PLEDGES
SPONSOR(S): JUDICIARY
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/16/01 0626 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/16/01 0626 (H) STA, JUD
04/12/01 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/12/01 (H) <Bill Postponed to 4/19>
04/19/01 1062 (H) STA RPT 6DP
04/19/01 1063 (H) DP: STEVENS, CRAWFORD, JAMES,
FATE,
04/19/01 1063 (H) HAYES, COGHILL
04/19/01 1063 (H) FN1: ZERO(GOV)
04/19/01 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 170
SHORT TITLE:PERS PEACE OFFICER STATUS: F&G EMPLOYEES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)MASEK
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/09/01 0520 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/09/01 0520 (H) STA, FIN
03/09/01 0520 (H) REFERRED TO STATE AFFAIRS
04/10/01 0940 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KERTTULA
04/19/01 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HJR 14
SHORT TITLE:CONST. AM: ALASKA HERITAGE FUND
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)CRAWFORD
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/14/01 0316 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/14/01 0316 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
02/14/01 0316 (H) REFERRED TO STATE AFFAIRS
04/17/01 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/17/01 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/19/01 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE MARY KAPSNER
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 424
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as the sponsor of HB 192.
LUANNE PELAGIO, Executive Director
Bristol Bay Native Corporation's Education Foundation
PO BOX 202243
ANCHORAGE, Alaska 99520
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 192.
MARIE PAUL
Bristol Bay Native Corporation's Education Foundation
PO BOX 166
TOGIAK, Alaska 99678
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 192.
GRETA GOTO
5622 CHILKOOT CT.
ANCHORAGE, Alaska 99524
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 192.
JONATHAN LARSON
PO BOX 220968
ANCHORAGE, Alaska 99522
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 192.
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 118
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as chair of the House Judiciary
Standing Committee, sponsor of HB 189.
GAIL FENUMIAI, Election Program Specialist
Division of Elections
P.O. Box 110017
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0017
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 189.
JENNIFER RUDINGER, Executive Director
Alaska Civil Liberties Union
P.O. Box 291844
Anchorage, AK 99520-1844
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 189.
EDDIE GRASSER, Staff
to Representative Masek
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 128
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the sponsor of HB
170, Representative Masek.
GUY BELL, Director
Health Benefits Section
Division of Retirement & Benefits
Department of Administration
PO Box 110203
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0201
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions related to HB 170.
DAVID LOVE, Southeast Region Shrimp Research Biologist
Commercial Fisheries Division
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
PO Box 1743
Petersburg, Alaska 99833
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 170.
MATT EVENSON, Fisheries Research Biologist
Fairbanks Sport Fish Division
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
PO Box 83691
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 170.
JOHN HILSINGER
1650 Winterset Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 170 and the
proposed CS.
JEFF BARNHART, Fisheries Biologist
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
11276 Bell Flats Road
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 170.
GINO DELFRATE, Wildlife Biologist
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
PO Box 1413
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 170.
TIM VIAVANT, Fisheries Biologist
Fairbanks Division of Sport Fishing
Alaska Department of Fish & Game,
PO Box 83053
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 170.
DON YOUNG, Wildlife Biologist
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
2702 Peger Rd
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 170.
BOB MURPHY, Management Biologist
Division of Commercial Fisheries
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
PO Box 4187
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 170.
NICHOLAS SAGALKIN
1315 Mission Road
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 170.
ROBERT HUNTER, Wildlife Technician
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
PO Box 83456
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 170.
MIKE DOXEY, Sport Fish Biologist
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
PO Box 71448
Fairbanks, Alaska 99707
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified to the need to place all ADF&G
biologists on a 20-year retirement plan.
HARRY REYNOLDS, 28-year employee
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
PO Box 80843
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 170.
JESSE VANDERZANDEN, Executive Director
Alaska Outdoor Council
PO Box 73902
Fairbanks, Alaska 99707
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 170.
DOREEN PARKER-McNEILL, Wildlife Biologist
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
1163 Toni Ct.
North Pole, Alaska 99705
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 170.
KEVIN BROOKS, Director
Division of Administrative Services
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
PO Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99811-5526
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 170.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-42, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR JOHN COGHILL called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:04 a.m. Representatives
Coghill, Fate, Stevens, and Crawford were present at the call to
order. Representatives James and Hayes arrived as the meeting
was in progress.
HB 192-BRISTOL BAY SALMON CLASSIC
CHAIR COGHILL announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 192, "An Act relating to the Bristol Bay
Salmon Classic; and providing for an effective date."
Number 0087
REPRESENTATIVE MARY KAPSNER, Alaska State Legislature, testified
as the sponsor of HB 192. Representative Kapsner informed the
committee that HB 192 would merely add the Bristol Bay Salmon
Classic to an already existing statute that includes salmon
classics in three other areas. The Bristol Bay Salmon Classic
will provide another funding source for the Bristol Bay Native
Corporation's Education Foundation in order to support
scholarships.
Number 0183
LUANNE PELAGIO, Executive Director, Bristol Bay Native
Corporation's Education Foundation, testified via
teleconference. Ms. Pelagio requested the committee's support
of HB 192. She explained that the foundation would use the
revenue generated by the salmon classic to provide additional
scholarships through the Bristol Bay Native Corporation's
Education Foundation. In the last three years the number of
scholarships have doubled. Therefore, [the Bristol Bay Native
Corporation's Education Foundation] is seeking other ways to
generate revenue to provide more scholarships. Furthermore, she
believed that support could be garnered for the education
program through the region by collaborating with the processors,
canneries, and fishermen. In conclusion, she urged the
committee to pass HB 192.
CHAIR COGHILL commended Ms. Pelagio's work with the current
scholarship program.
Number 0371
MARIE PAUL, Bristol Bay Native Corporation's Education
Foundation, testified via teleconference. Ms. Paul announced
her support of the Bristol Bay Salmon Classic because it will
help the young people through the scholarships. She echoed the
need for the committee's support of HB 192 due to the growing
demand for scholarships.
Number 0458
GRETA GOTO testified via teleconference. She informed the
committee that she is a past recipient of a Bristol Bay Native
Corporation scholarship. Ms. Goto noted her support of HB 192
because it supports young people who want to further their
education. She requested the committee's support for HB 192.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked if the assumption that all the
money that is collected from the salmon classic goes to the
students for scholarships and that no money is spent on overhead
costs would be correct.
MS. PELAGIO said that would be correct.
Number 0559
JONATHAN LARSON testified via teleconference. He noted that he
is a past recipient of a Bristol Bay Native Corporation
scholarship. He also noted his support of HB 192. In response
to Chair Coghill, Mr. Larson informed the committee that he used
his scholarship to pursue his business degree, which he received
in 1998.
MS. GOTO informed the committee that she used her scholarship to
pay for the books [required for her classes].
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER, in response to Chair Coghill, affirmed
that the [Alaska Department of] Fish & Game (ADF&G) will perform
the tallying for this classic. Although there is no backup from
the [Alaska Department of] Fish & Game, there is a zero fiscal
note.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS pointed out that [ADF&G] already does
this for that time period.
Number 0743
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES moved to report HB 192 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying [zero]
fiscal note. There being no objection, HB 192 was reported from
the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 189 - REPEAL TERM LIMITS/TERM LIMITS PLEDGES
Number 0790
CHAIR COGHILL announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 189, "An Act repealing statutory provisions
relating to term limits and term limit pledges."
Number 0189
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG, Alaska State Legislature, came
forward to testify as chair of the House Judiciary Standing
Committee, sponsor of HB 189. He explained that HB 189 repeals
statutory provisions relating to term limits and term limit
pledges.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG went over the sponsor statement, which
said:
On February 28, 2001, in a case entitled Cook v.
Gralike, et al., the United States Supreme Court ruled
that printing term limit pledges on the ballot next to
a Congressional candidate's name is unconstitutional.
The Missouri act which was struck down required
"DISREGARDED VOTERS' INSTRUCTION ON TERM LIMITS" to be
printed on ballots by the names of members failing to
take certain legislative acts in support of the
proposed term limit amendment. It also provided that
"DECLINED TO PLEDGE TO SUPPORT TERM LIMITS" be printed
by the names of the non-incumbent candidates refusing
to take a "Term Limit" pledge to bring about a
specified "Congressional Term Limits Amendment."
Through the Elections Clause, the Constitution
delegated to the states the power to regulate the
"Times, Places, Manner of holding Elections for
Senators and Representatives," subject to a grant of
authority to Congress to "make or alter such
Regulations." The states may regulate the incidents
of such elections, including balloting, only within
the exclusive delegation of power under the Elections
Clause.
The Supreme Court found that the requirement of
printing on the ballot a candidate's lack of
acceptance of a term limit pledge was not a procedural
regulation. It did not regulate the time of
elections; it did not regulate the place of elections;
nor did it regulate the manner of elections. Rather,
the court found, the requirement was plainly designed
to favor candidates who are willing to support the
particular form of a term limits amendment, and to
disfavor those who either oppose term limits entirely
or who would prefer a different proposal. The Court
stated that "... it seems clear that the adverse
labels handicap candidates at the most crucial state
in the election process -- the instant before the vote
is cast. The labels imply that the issue is an
important -- perhaps paramount -- consideration in the
citizen's choice, which may decisively influence the
citizen to cast his ballot against candidates branded
as unfaithful. Thus, far from regulating the
procedural mechanisms of elections, the Missouri act
attempts to dictate electoral outcomes. Such
'regulation' of congressional elections simply is not
authorized by the 'Elections Clause.'"
Alaska statutes AS 15.15.500-575 require that
"VIOLATED VOTER INSTRUCTION ON TERM LIMITS" be printed
on the ballot adjacent to the name of any respective
state Senator or Representative who failed to take
appropriate action in support of a congressional term
limit amendment to the constitution, during the
preceding term of office. The same shall be printed
on the ballot adjacent to the name of any United
States Senator or Representative who also fails to
take appropriate action during the preceding term.
Non-incumbent candidates for United States Senator and
Representative, and state Senator and Representative
who decline to take a "Term Limits" pledge shall have
"DECLINED TO TAKE PLEDGE TO SUPPORT TERM LIMITS"
printed adjacent to their name on every primary and
general election ballot.
Any candidate for the United States Congress and the
Alaska Legislature is permitted to submit to the
lieutenant governor an executed copy of the Term
Limits Pledge set for in AS 15.15.560(b). The
lieutenant governor shall place on every election
ballot "Signed TERM LIMITS pledge: Will serve no more
than [3 terms] [2 terms]" next to the name of any
candidate who has ever executed the Term Limits
pledge. In addition, "Broke TERM LIMITS pledge" shall
be placed on every ballot next to the name of any
candidate, who at any time executes the applicable
Term Limits Pledge, and thereafter qualifies as a
candidate for a term that would exceed the number of
terms or years set for in the applicable Term Limits
Pledge.
Since the Alaska statutes are so similar to those of
Missouri, this United States Supreme Court ruling
suggests that our statutes are unconstitutional. This
bill will repeal these unconstitutional statutes.
The committee urges your support of this bill.
Number 1200
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he submits that the pledge that
candidates for the Alaska legislature are required to either
decline or [find it] unconstitutional. He said he was very
surprised that it found its way onto the ballot, and expressed
disappointment with the lieutenant governor and the attorney
general for not finding it unconstitutional. He said there has
been adjudication throughout the country on the issue.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he had been "a rabid term limits
supporter" when first elected to the legislature. "As I was
here longer, my wisdom started growing," he testified, and he
now thinks it takes two to four years to learn the job. He said
he thinks he would support term limit pledges if they were for
"eight years in one house and four in the other or twelve years
or whatever -- or none at all," but he thinks that in Alaska's
statute, a candidate has to agree to serving no more than eight
years within a 16-year period.
CHAIR COGHILL said, "That is if you sign the pledge."
Number 1477
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he does not agree with the existing
limitation. He explained:
The voters have forced me into a situation where I
either have to sign or not sign for something I really
believe in philosophically, that is to say, term
limits. But because I disagree with the specific
number of years, that puts me at odds with the whole
situation. So I would have a "scarlet letter." As a
matter of fact, I signed a term limit pledge last time
because I thought it was representative of my
philosophy. Now, because I introduced this bill, the
lieutenant governor is going to have to put the
"scarlet letter" next to my name. So I'd ask the
committee to pass this bill so I won't have that
happen.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted that committee members had in
their packets a letter from a former state attorney general,
John Havelock, in which he states his support for HB 189.
Number 1425
CHAIR COGHILL asked if those who have signed the pledge would be
released from that pledge if HB 189 were to pass.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said they would.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG mentioned a 1998 Alaska State attorney
general's opinion that found a portion of the state statute to
be unconstitutional. [That opinion was included in committee
members' packets.] He explained, "The term limits pledge as it
relates specifically to Congressional candidates (Alaska's U.S.
senators and congressman) [is unconstitutional] because of the
Supreme Court case."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said, "It seems to me that those same
arguments, albeit applying in a broader picture, [also apply] to
the state candidates for the state legislature. I think the
people of the state of Alaska erred in the construction of the
initiative that was put forward to them and it's
unconstitutional based on First Amendment grounds."
CHAIR COGHILL commented, "A point well taken."
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES added, "I second it."
Number 1580
CHAIR COGHILL said his major question concerned the releasing of
those who had already signed the pledge. He said he supposed
that those who agree with the concept of term limits could
publicly make note of the fact that that it is their philosophy.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG responded, "It's called campaigning."
Number 1541
CHAIR COGHILL said one of the reasons he did not sign the pledge
was because he wants the people in the district to make the
determination [of how long he will serve].
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG agreed, saying, "The major method of
term limiting is the ballot box. Let the voters decide."
Number 1594
CHAIR COGHILL asked, "Do you see any other questions that might
arise from us taking it off this statute?"
GAIL FENUMIAI, Election Program Specialist, Division of
Elections, Office of the Lieutenant Governor, replied:
No, in fact, the division was just contemplating how
to go about monitoring this whole voluntary term
limits pledge, which is the only part ... of this
section that would be repealed ... because as
Representative Rokeberg pointed out, the first section
to this statute, 15.15.500 to 15.15.535, ...[was] the
mandatory term limits pledge ... that was declared
unconstitutional by the courts, and so we were not
enforcing that at all. So no, it'll free up some
space on the ballots ... now without having to print
that little line below people who did decide to take
that voluntary pledge.
Number 1654
CHAIR COGHILL said a ballot is for selecting candidates, not for
disseminating information.
Number 1694
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS said he understood this is a state issue,
but asked what is now the current law on the federal level as
far as Senators and Representatives in Congress.
Number 1721
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the Supreme Court case decision in
February found "any provisions regarding that as
unconstitutional."
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS surmised, "So we'll see some changes in
that as well".
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied,:
Right. Frankly, without that case coming down, I
would not probably have brought forward this
legislation in fear of being castigated by the public
as trying to overturn the initiative process and the
will of the voters. I just think the way it was
constructed and how it's done is unfair; it's unfair
to the candidates who run for office and therefore
unfair to the people of the state of Alaska.
Number 1489
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she didn't think that repealing this
law would stop various groups who believe strongly in term
limits from trying to get candidates to pledge to them that they
would support term limits. She said she does not believe that
signing a pledge is a good idea "because you may find out some
additional information that you didn't know before, and then
you'd like to break it, and breaking pledges is just ...
something you don't do in this job. So I try not to make firm
commitments on anything. I just try to say I'll watch the bill
and I'll see what I do when it's on the House floor and I'll see
what it says."
Number 1829
JENNIFER RUDINGER, Executive Director, Alaska Civil Liberties
Union (AkCLU), came forward to testify in support of HB 189.
She said the AkCLU's position has nothing to do with term
limits. "It is simply that the ballot itself is no place for
election propaganda," she said; "the voters have a right to a
ballot that is clean and that candidates have a right not to
have either 'scarlet letters' or, in this case, 'gold stars'
next to their names."
MS. RUDINGER said the AkCLU was close to filing a lawsuit on the
original "scarlet letter law" that never took effect. Alaska's
scarlet letter law that Attorney General Bruce Botelho ruled
unconstitutional a few years ago was similar to Missouri's, she
said. The difference between them was that the Missouri bill
put something by a candidate's name indicating whether or not he
or she chose to sign the pledge. The AkCLU calls Alaska's a
"gold star" law because if a person doesn't sign the pledge, it
doesn't say anything by that person's name on the ballot. It
only says something by the names of those who chose to sign the
pledge.
MS. RUDINGER said the ACLU of Idaho successfully challenged a
law essentially the same as Alaska's, a gold star law. The ACLU
of Idaho took it to the Supreme Court of Idaho on two grounds,
free speech rights of candidates and the rights of voters.
Although they won on rights of voters, the court did not rule on
the free speech issue. The Idaho court said:
While respondents have argued that the state has a
legitimate interest in providing voters with
information, they have failed to demonstrate that such
an interest is compelling and that the statute is
necessary to further that interest. The information
the state seeks to make available to voters is easily
obtainable through a variety of other sources, namely
media sources and the candidate's own voter
information materials. The statute cannot be said to
be necessary to provide that information to the
voters. In addition, while the state does have a
compelling interest in protecting the integrity of the
electoral process, the ballot legend authorized by the
statute undermines ballot integrity by "transforming
it [the ballot] from a means of choosing candidates to
a billboard for political advertising."
MS. RUDINGER said that is the crux of the ACLU's objection. "We
don't care what the issue is," she explained; "we do not think
that the ballot is the place for this kind of speech." The
AkCLU is happy not to have to go to court if HB 189 passes, and
"We are here in support of it," she concluded.
Number 2057
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD commented, "I feel like I woke up in
some sort of alternate reality this morning. We have
Republicans talking against term limits pledges and the AkCLU
backing them up. I don't know what's happened." He said he,
too, supported HB 189.
CHAIR COGHILL added, "We're all going to walk out of here
joining hands."
Number 2097
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES claimed a conflict of interest, as could
all members, because HB 189 affected him. He called the bill
"great."
Number 2115
REPRESENTATIVE FATE moved to report HB 189 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note. There being no objection, HB 189 was moved out of the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
CHAIR COGHILL declared a brief at-ease at 8:32 a.m. The
committee was called back to order at 8:35 a.m.
HB 170-PERS PEACE OFFICER STATUS: F&G EMPLOYEES
CHAIR COGHILL continued with the next order of business, HOUSE
BILL NO. 170, "An Act relating to granting certain employees of
the Department of Fish and Game status as peace officers under
the public employees' retirement system."
Number 2194
EDDIE GRASSER, Staff to Representative Masek, Alaska State
Legislature, explained that Representative Masek introduced this
legislation due to the concerns surrounding the attrition rate
being experienced in the Alaska Department of Fish & Game
(ADF&G). Mr. Grasser said HB 170 was introduced in order to
create incentives to recruit new employees that stay with the
department. Mr. Grasser pointed out that Alaska's wealth comes
from its resources. The revenues derived from fish and game are
significant. Therefore, Mr. Grasser felt it would be a travesty
to not have qualified professionals managing Alaska's wildlife.
MR. GRASSER addressed the concern raised regarding the status of
peace officers, which is addressed in a proposed committee
substitute (CS) that the sponsor prepared for the committee.
The CS takes ADF&G employees out of peace officer status and
creates a new position, Professional Fish & Game employees.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS inquired as to how this would impact
part-time employees or seasonal employees.
MR. GRASSER pointed out that the definition section includes
permanent, seasonal employees. Therefore, a part-time employee
that isn't permanent would not be included in the retirement
system while permanent seasonal employees would be included in
the retirement system.
Number 2387
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked, "What does that mean in terms of
actual retirement for someone ...? Does that prolong it to 40
years or can they still retire after 20 years as a six-month
employee?"
MR. GRASSER related his belief that once an employee is vested
as a state employee and that employee reaches a certain
timeframe, then that employee can retire. However, that
employee's retirement benefits may not be that much.
Number 2424
GUY BELL, Director, Health Benefits Section, Division of
Retirement & Benefits, Department of Administration, explained
that if a seasonal employee worked five months as a seasonal
employee, then that employee would have five months of service
that year. Therefore, it would take longer for a [seasonal]
employee to accumulate 20 or 30 years.
CHAIR COGHILL asked if an employee can buy more [retirement] or
is it limited to the employees employment.
MR. BELL explained that the bill allows a person to buy past
service [accrued] as peace officer service.
CHAIR COGHILL asked if a seasonal employee would be able [to buy
their past accrued service].
MR. BELL replied yes and clarified that the same provisions
apply to seasonal and full-time employees. In further response
to Chair Coghill, Mr. Bell confirmed that there is a cost to the
employee to buy back [past accrued service]. He specified that
the cost is the difference between what the employee contributed
and would have contributed as a peace officer plus some
interest, which is less than the full actuarial cost.
Number 2549
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES addressed the "catch-up amount." She posed
a situation in which an employee had been working for five years
and paying into a 30-year plan. With the change to a 20-year
plan, does the bill include an option to "do that or not do
that." Furthermore, when an employee buys in to the 20-year
plan, does that employee have to pay the state's portion as well
as their own.
MR. BELL explained that as the bill is drafted, the person who
wants to purchase service as peace officer time is required to
pay the difference between what the employee would pay as a
peace officer versus a non peace officer, which is a difference
of three-quarters of a percent per year plus interest. That
amount is less than the full actuarial cost. Also, there is an
employer contribution that has gone into the system over the
years that hasn't been addressed.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS noted his agreement that 20-year
retirement is a good idea for ADF&G because people are being
lost to the federal government. Representative Stevens asked
whether Mr. Bell saw this proposed change as having a negative
impact on the health of the Public Employees' Retirement System
(PERS) and the Teachers' Retirement System (TRS).
MR. BELL pointed out that, in broad terms, there are a number of
groups that are interested in changing from a 30-year retirement
to a 20-year retirement as is evident in past legislation to
make this change for police dispatchers and employees of
correctional institutions. In those cases, the legislature
required those employees to pay the entire cost to "20 [years]
and out." Although he wasn't sure of the number of employees
interested in "20 [years] and out," he remarked that even a
couple thousand employees would amount to a substantial amount
that would impact employer rates. Mr. Bell pointed out that it
is about a 2.5 percent differential between a peace officer and
a non peace officer.
CHAIR COGHILL remarked that this [legislation] is not the only
one of its kind. With that, Chair Coghill turned to those
signed up to testify.
Number 2947
DAVID LOVE, Southeast Region Shrimp Research Biologist,
Commercial Fisheries Division, Alaska Department of Fish & Game,
testified via teleconference. He began by noting his support of
HB 170. Mr. Love has worked in fisheries for 15 years and took
his current position in June of 2000. When he took his current
position he took a pay cut from his previous positions.
Furthermore, if he had taken a similar position with the federal
government, Mr. Love would be receiving [Cost of Living
Allowance] COLA in addition to his regular pay. In response to
why he took such a position, Mr. Love said, "I see it as a
stimulating position. I work with people like myself who
believe they have a responsibility to future generations and the
people of Alaska to wisely use the resources we all depend [on]
and benefit from." Although Mr. Love likes his position, he
pointed out that over the course of his career he has been
exposed to a variety of dangerous situations in various
locations. He remarked that some days he asks himself whether
the risks of his job are worth the rewards. Therefore, some
recognition of the risks he has taken while in the service of
the state in the form of the 20-year retirement plan would help
to allay his occasional cynicism and maintain his enthusiasm
during the long hours he often works. Mr. Love said that
benefits as described in HB 170 would be a step in the right
direction to convince new hires like himself to stay employed
with the State of Alaska.
MR. LOVE informed the committee that he has discovered that some
of his coworkers were hired as biologists with the state under a
20-year retirement plan similar to that proposed in HB 170.
Therefore, he felt that such disparity is unfair and could be
rectified with HB 170.
TAPE 01-42, SIDE B
MR. LOVE concluded by encouraging the supporters of HB 170 to
make it a reality.
Number 2951
MATT EVENSON, Fisheries Research Biologist, Fairbanks Sport Fish
Division, testified via teleconference. Mr. Evenson spoke in
support of HB 170. He acknowledged that as an employee working
under the 30-year retirement plan, he has much to gain with the
passage of HB 170. However, he alluded to the notion that HB
170 would benefit more than just a few state employees. Mr.
Evenson reviewed his positive experience with his job with
ADF&G. As a college intern, he couldn't think of anything
better than "flying around the countryside and bobbing down
Alaska's wild and scenic rivers for weeks on end." However, as
Mr. Evenson began to raise a family, being gone for weeks at a
time became more stressful on his family. Mr. Evenson said,
"Having done this work for 15 years now, it's hard to imagine
keeping up this pace and enthusiasm knowing retirement is a
minimum of 15 years away. Nor is it easy to imagine applying
for a more demanding and stressful higher level positions until
I feel like I'm much closer to retirement." Under the current
30-year retirement system, Mr. Evenson believes that vested
professionals with the state system will leave the system for
less stressful and higher paying consulting positions with the
federal government or private businesses. Such a scenario would
be bad for the state as a whole. Therefore, Mr. Evenson
believes that reinstating the 20-year retirement system would
ensure that the managers of Alaska's fish and wildlife resources
will remain "the dedicated and passionate and enthusiastic
professionals that I have come to know for the past 15 years."
Number 2831
JOHN HILSINGER testified via teleconference. Mr. Hilsinger
informed the committee that he retired in 1988 under the 20-year
retirement system. He recalled that those hired after 1983 fall
under the 30-year retirement. Mr. Hilsinger said that he
supports HB 170 because these jobs are extremely stressful and
dangerous. Since statehood, there have been 24 [ADF&G staff]
fatalities. Furthermore, the pay for these positions have not
kept pace with inflation or with what the federal government is
paying for comparable federal positions. Mr. Hilsinger related
his belief that very few of those working under the 30-year
retirement will actually work 30 years.
MR. HILSINGER pointed out that ADF&G hires a large number of
seasonal employees who spend five to ten years with the
department before they are able to obtain a full-time permanent
position. Such seasonal employees may actually end up working
35-40 years to receive 30 years of service. Mr. Hilsinger said
that many people are leaving the department after ten years of
service, which troubled him. Therefore, he felt that this 20-
year retirement system would be a powerful incentive to help
retain employees. He felt that the cost to the employee as laid
out in HB 170 is fair.
MR. HILSINGER turned the peace officer retirement. He related
his belief that the ADF&G 20-year retirement could stand on its
own merit and doesn't necessarily have to be tied to the peace
officer retirement. Therefore, Mr. Hilsinger said that he could
support the CS as well [as HB 170]. However, he expressed the
need to take care in determining which positions are to be
included in the 20-year retirement. He suggested including
those positions that require a degree in biological sciences as
well as the Fish & Wildlife Tech and boat officer positions.
Number 2609
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS inquired as to which positions Mr.
Hilsinger would exclude from the 20-year retirement.
MR. HILSINGER specified that he would exclude all the
administrative positions, the resource specialists, and the
research analysts. Those are the primary positions that don't
require a degree in biology. Mr. Hilsinger expressed the need
to use language such that it would allow a person who is a
biologist and who takes a promotion to a position that isn't
included in the 20-year retirement system the ability to retain
that 20-year retirement.
Number 2544
JEFF BARNHART, Fisheries Biologist, Alaska Department of Fish &
Game, testified via teleconference. He noted that he, as have
others, has lost a number of friends while working for ADF&G and
serving the people of the state. Personally, he has had a
number of close calls himself. "The dangers are very real. We
face them every day and people should be compensated in the form
of a 20-year retirement," he said. Furthermore, there are the
economic realities that are illustrated in the American
Fisheries Society reports of the comparisons of fisheries
biologists' salaries nationwide since 1977. A fisheries
biologist's salary in Alaska has significantly declined in
comparison to the national average. The decline in salaries and
benefits since 1977 coupled with the change from a 20-year
retirement to a 30-year retirement has resulted in the
department's current situation: a 20 percent vacancy rate.
Biologists with the department are leaving state service for
various other options. Therefore, the department isn't
retaining its current biologists nor is it attracting new and
qualified people.
MR. BARNHART remarked that Alaska's fish and wildlife resources
is Alaska's primary renewable resource and thus the economic and
social benefits of Alaska's fish and wildlife resources touch
the lives of almost every Alaskan. He reviewed the range of
economic and social benefits created by these resources. He
said, "It's so important to the lives of all Alaskans that we
have good populations of wild resources for now and for the
future. We need to keep the qualified biologists we currently
have and attract new qualified biologists that would make good
decisions based on sound research. And 20-year retirement would
be a good step toward achieving that goal." Therefore, Mr.
Barnhart encouraged the committee to support the bill.
Number 2355
GINO DELFRATE, Wildlife Biologist, Alaska Department of Fish &
Game, testified via teleconference. Mr. Delfrate encouraged the
committee to pass HB 170. He informed the committee that he was
the first person hired under the 30-year retirement plan. He
also informed the committee that when he was first hired as a
wildlife biologist he was required to obtain a peace officer
badge. Mr. Delfrate said that as time passed he realized that
his job was no different than the person he replaced who had 20-
year retirement. In fact, the person that he replaced was
killed in an airplane accident while doing mountain goat
surveys. Mr. Delfrate expressed the need to have 20-year
retirement because there is no difference in the work, and
furthermore it would make a difference in his outlook.
Number 2244
TIM VIAVANT, Fisheries Biologist, Fairbanks Division of Sport
Fishing, Alaska Department of Fish & Game, testified via
teleconference. Mr. Viavant urged the committee to support HB
170. Mr. Viavant echoed earlier comments regarding the fact
that the department is facing and will continue to face real
problems with recruitment and retention of qualified quality
employees. In recent years the pool of available candidates has
been small and often recruitment periods have to be extended or
out of state recruitment has occurred. He feels that the
recruitment pool is smaller because of the disparity in pay
between the federal government and private sector and the state
government. Furthermore, this work, although rewarding, is very
stressful and occasionally dangerous. Although safety is a big
concern for Mr. Viavant, he said that the overall stress level
of being in a position that has contention over resource
allocation [is also a big concern]. Other stressors with the
job are the large amounts of time spent away from home as well
as working large amounts of uncompensated overtime. In
conclusion, Mr. Viavant said that a 20-year retirement plan
would make these positions more attractive to prospective
applicants and would increase the likelihood that current
employees would stay to meet the 20-year retirement.
Number 2046
DON YOUNG, Wildlife Biologist, Alaska Department of Fish & Game,
testified via teleconference. He began by noting his support of
HB 170. He informed the committee that he has worked for ADF&G
since 1997. Prior to that he worked for the U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service in Fairbanks for about eight years. Under the
federal system, he wasn't deputized and fell under a 30-year
retirement system. Prior to his work with [the U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service] he worked with the Idaho Department of Fish &
Game as a seasonal technician from 1978-1989. Under the Idaho
system he was deputized and under a 20-year retirement system.
MR. YOUNG said that the primary issue for him is the hazardous
risk with his position. Mr. Young informed the committee that
since coming to Alaska he has lost four colleagues to plane
crashes. He pointed out that he spends hundreds of hours each
year doing low-level, less than 500 feet, fixed-wing surveys.
Often these surveys are conducted in poor weather conditions.
Furthermore, in his position he spends about a week net-gunning
caribou, which is considered to be one of the most dangerous
capture activities. He discussed the potential problems with
the various capture activities and noted that the department is
reviewing the aircraft safety policy due to the number of close
calls. Mr. Young turned to the enforcement aspect of the
position and charged that staff is poorly trained in
enforcement. At the beginning of his service with the
department, he received one week of training and at this time
there have been no refresher courses.
MR. YOUNG echoed earlier comments regarding the fact that people
doing the same job, side-by-side, fall under different
retirement plans, which he indicated is [unfair]. From his
experience serving on the hiring committee, he concluded that
the hiring pool is relatively poor. Therefore, he felt that the
20-year retirement would improve that situation. In closing he
returned to the fact that he left the federal system to be
employed with the state, which resulted in a 30 percent pay cut,
although the job was the same. He clarified that he only went
to the state system once his situation was such that he couldn't
continue with the federal system.
Number 1725
BOB MURPHY, Management Biologist, Division of Commercial
Fisheries, Alaska Department of Fish & Game, testified via
teleconference. Mr. Murphy noted his strong support of HB 170.
He echoed earlier testimony regarding the dangers of ADF&G staff
when in the field. Although the state has developed an
excellent system of local management and a thorough regulatory
process, management of fish and wildlife is one of the most
contentious issues in the state and places a high level of
responsibility and stress on ADF&G staff. Therefore, it becomes
more difficult to fill vacant positions and entice employees to
take promotions to more stressful positions. He pointed out
that many younger employees openly state that they will not stay
to reach their 30-year retirement. Mr. Murphy concluded by
saying, "This bill is the single-most critical step in the right
direction to providing a strong incentive for recruiting and
retaining well-qualified and talented individuals to work for
the Alaska Department of Fish & Game."
NICHOLAS SAGALKIN testified via teleconference. Mr. Sagalkin
said he strongly supported HB 170. In his five years with ADF&G
he has had a number of close calls during which he felt his life
was in jeopardy. He reviewed his firsthand experiences with the
dangers of the job. Mr. Sagalkin also addressed the difficult
time the department has had with recruiting people in biologist
positions. For example, the management biologist position for
Area M, one of the most controversial fisheries in the state,
will be unfilled going into the beginning of the commercial
fishing season. Also the research biologist position for the
Bering Sea, one of the largest resources in Alaska, has been
unfilled for several months now.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS reiterated his earlier question regarding
who should be included in and excluded from the 20-year
retirement plan.
MR. MURPHY related his belief that the proposed CS includes
language that includes all biologists with the state, which are
the field generals for ADF&G.
CHAIR COGHILL pointed out that some [ADF&G biologists] are
deputized by the Commissioner of the Department of Public Safety
and thus there is some overlap.
Number 1412
ROBERT HUNTER, Wildlife Technician, Alaska Department of Fish &
Game, testified via teleconference in support of HB 170. In the
12 years he has worked with ADF&G he has had a number of close
calls, including three serious aircraft incidents. Mr. Hunter
informed the committee that Alaska has the highest death rate of
biologists and technicians in North America. Furthermore,
[ADF&G's] benefits are not keeping pace with competing
employers. There are fewer applicants than one would expect for
many positions, which has often led the department to delay or
postpone a recruiting process due to an inadequate number of
applicants to ensure that the best person for the position was
being hired. At one time it was common to attract applicants
from federal agencies, but that is no longer the case. Mr.
Hunter said, "Our programs are already suffering from vacancies
that take too long to fill." Therefore, employees often have to
cover those vacant positions in addition to their current
position, which is inefficient.
MR. HUNTER echoed earlier comments regarding the disparity
within the office, that is colleagues doing the same job while
falling under different retirement systems. He pointed out that
a ten year difference in retirement can be a long time when one
thinks in context of the risks to which the employee is being
exposed. Mr. Hunter said, "Regaining the 20-year retirement
option may help reduce the gap between the employers' benefit
packages and allow us to compete, again, for the expertise we
need working for the state." Therefore, he hoped that the
committee will support HB 170 in order to restore the [20-year]
benefit option to the department's biologists and technicians.
Number 1181
MIKE DOXEY, Sport Fish Biologist, Alaska Department of Fish &
Game, testified via teleconference. He mentioned the death of
two of his college mates while working for ADF&G. He also
mentioned his dangerous experiences as an ADF&G employee.
However, he noted that his experiences are not unique among
ADF&G employees. Mr. Doxey felt it appropriate that all ADF&G
biologists be covered by the 20-year retirement plan as he is.
Number 1095
HARRY REYNOLDS, 28-year employee, Alaska Department of Fish &
Game, testified via teleconference. He noted that most of his
employment with ADF&G has been as a grizzly bear research
biologist. Mr. Reynolds reiterated earlier testimony regarding
the dangerous nature of his job and noted that he has been in
three helicopter crashes, one airplane crashe, five helicopter
incidents, and three fixed-wing incidents. Although he has
survived, four of his friends have not. Employees of ADF&G have
a higher rate of violent death on the job than any other
department, including the state troopers, he believed. He
related his belief that the current retirement system is unfair.
MR. REYNOLDS turned to the earlier suggestion of excluding
employees without a biology degree from the 20-year retirement
system. He pointed out that in the Fairbanks division,
biometricians, computer program analysts, and network
specialists consistently do field work alongside biologists.
Therefore, he felt that the original language that said a
qualified employee was someone certified by the commissioner
"could address this concern."
Number 0907
JESSE VANDERZANDEN, Executive Director, Alaska Outdoor Council
(AOC), testified via teleconference. Mr. Vanderzanden informed
the committee that the AOC board hasn't had a formal opportunity
to support HB 170. However, he has spoken with several board
members who wanted him to forward their support. Mr.
Vanderzanden said that [AOC] agrees with many of the comments
mentioned regarding hazardous duty and fairness within the
department.
MR. VANDERZANDEN said:
To the extent possible the AOC has tried to base their
policies on sound science. And as you know, sound
science is founded upon the replication and the
constant measuring and monitoring of the environment
and the fish and wildlife resources that interact in
that environment. The retainment of good biologists
at ADF&G enhances this replication and in turn
enhances the credibility of the department. And in
turn enhances Alaska's credibility, with respect to
the intensive and scientific management of fish and
game. To us, it's absolutely critical to have this
... replication, to have this continuity, to have this
monitoring. It's no secret that we're under the
microscope of the East Coast and in many respects, the
nation. And to the extent that we can enhance and
maintain our scientific credibility, it allows the
state to not only retain their state management
authority but also to continue implementing often
unique and ... sometimes controversial programs that
separate Alaska from the rest of the nation. We have
a different set of circumstances up here and to the
extent that we can maintain and enhance our scientific
credibility, it's good for the department, ... Alaska,
and ... our fish and wildlife.
Number 0720
DOREEN PARKER-McNEILL, Wildlife Biologist, Alaska Department of
Fish & Game, testified via teleconference. She informed the
committee that a significant amount of her job entails low-level
wildlife survey flights and she has worked in remote areas. Ms.
Parker-McNeill also informed the committee that for eight years
she worked for the U.S. Forest Service. When she switched from
federal to state employment, she noticed that her voice was
actually heard in the state's bureaucratic system. However,
when she worked for the state she no longer received the 25
percent tax free COLA. She reviewed the inherent dangers with
her job. Ms. Parker-McNeill said that she hoped that the
committee would support HB 170 because she believes that a 20-
year retirement plan would keep ADF&G employees working for the
state.
Number 0468
KEVIN BROOKS, Director, Division of Administrative Services,
Alaska Department of Fish & Game, said that the department feels
that it is worthy to review this type of measure. He confirmed
the testimony that the department has been grappling with pay
and retention issues for the past few years. Currently, there
is a salary survey being conducted in order to document the
aforementioned poor candidate pools and other problems. He
agreed that the aforementioned dangers to ADF&G employees are
real.
MR. BROOKS informed the committee that currently the department
has about 250 employees that fall under the 20-year retirement
plan. In those same biological positions there are about 363
that fall under the 30-year retirement plan. These two groups
are working side-by-side. With regard to the deputized
employees, he explained that every year the department sends a
pool of employees to the Sitka Trooper Academy for about a week
of training. These deputized employees complement enforcement
efforts from the Department of Public Safety. Although that is
part of the job, it is not the primary focus. Mr. Brooks noted
his agreement with Mr. Hilsinger's comment that ADF&G employees
and their hazardous duties can stood alone, apart from peace
officers.
CHAIR COGHILL turned to the disparity between state employment
and federal employment [for a fish and/or wildlife position].
He asked Mr. Brooks to provide the committee with a percentage.
MR. BROOKS remarked that the disparity between federal and state
employment has been one of the department's largest
frustrations. He said that the biggest difference is the 20
percent tax free COLA.
TAPE 01-43, SIDE A
MR. BROOKS informed the committee that the salary survey will
compare state employment with federal employment; specific
comparisons will be prepared. That survey will be available in
May.
CHAIR COGHILL asked if there are other disparities for ADF&G
employees beyond the retirement plan.
MR. BROOKS explained that the most recently hired employees
enter a three-tier system that is dramatically different. He
recalled that there is other legislation that would address
those inequities. Someone hired today, would be under the 30-
year retirement and receive 50 percent [of the health benefits
upon retirement].
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if there has been a change in the
number of years required for someone to become vested.
MR. BROOKS said he believes that it takes five years to become
vested.
There was inaudible testimony from Kathy Lea, Retirement
Supervision, Division of Retirement & Benefits, Department of
Administration, regarding the three-tier system and the vesting
requirements.
Number 0304
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS said that he appreciated hearing from Mr.
Reynolds and Mr. Doxey both of which could have retired after 20
years, but choose to stay. Therefore, Representative Stevens
surmised that the good news is that under the 20-year
retirement, it doesn't necessarily mean that an employee has to
retire after 20 years; it is merely an option. Representative
Stevens asked whether Mr. Brooks had any idea how many of the
250 employees under the 20-year retirement system have worked
beyond 20 years. He also asked whether the 24 deaths that have
occurred since statehood primarily involved low-level flights.
He further asked how moving between administrative and field
positions would impact retirement.
MR. BROOKS first addressed the question regarding the percentage
of employees working beyond their 20-year retirement. By virtue
of the cutoff date, 1983, there is an increasing number of
employees that are working past 20 years. However, he noted
that some of those folks are seasonal. Mr. Brooks then turned
to the question regarding the 24 fatalities in the department,
which he believes were mainly aircraft fatalities.
MR. BROOKS moved on to the question regarding whether moving
between administrative and field positions would impact
retirement and whether that is clear in the bill. Mr. Brooks
said that the desire is to have this issue clear in the bill
because "we" don't want anything in the bill to dissuade anyone
from promoting. The intent is to identify those biological
positions that are hazardous. From his own experience in the
department, Mr. Brooks pointed out that every regional
supervisor, deputy director, and director hired in the resource
divisions has come through the ranks and has a biology degree.
Mr. Brooks said that the department's position would be that the
designation would carry if someone promoted outside of the
strict biological definition.
Number 0585
CHAIR COGHILL announced that he would like to hold HB 170 and
discuss it again, although he expressed the need to get this
bill to the House Finance Committee this year. However, he
noted that there are several other bills that are traveling
through the legislature that discuss workforce retention,
recruitment, and parity. Chair Coghill clarified that he wanted
to lay some of these side-by-side before passing them to the
House Finance Committee. He noted that he also wanted to
further discuss the peace officer link that HB 170 has.
Therefore, Chair Coghill held HB 170 for further discussion.
The committee took a brief at-ease.
[Please note that the tape was changed at this point.]
TAPE 01-44, SIDE A
HJR 14-CONST. AM: ALASKA HERITAGE FUND
CHAIR COGHILL announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 14, Proposing amendments to the
Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to the budget
reserve fund and to the Alaska heritage fund; and providing for
an effective date for the amendments.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD, Alaska State Legislature, testified as
the sponsor of HJR 14. Representative Crawford explained that
HJR 14 is a simple and straightforward constitutional amendment.
However, it will result in many consequences. Representative
Crawford said, "I believe that it's incumbent on us to look
forward and see that we have a disaster waiting for us and that
we need to act." This resolution would change the
Constitutional Budget Reserve Fund to the Alaska Heritage Fund,
which is a percent of market value fund. With the Alaska
Heritage Fund "we" would never spend more than 5 percent of the
market value of the fund. Therefore, the savings would be
protected from "us" and thus would hopefully provide an impetus
to move forward on a long-term fiscal policy. Representative
Crawford said that he couldn't see any other choices in this
matter. He pointed out, "We don't know when the constitutional
budget reserve is going to run out. But if we do nothing, we do
know it's going to run out." Therefore, he believes that HJR 14
would provide the necessary tools to establish a growing fund to
use for the budget gap, which would eliminate the need to tax.
CHAIR COGHILL announced that HJR 14 would probably be brought up
again on Tuesday.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 10:55
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|