04/24/2001 08:06 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
April 24, 2001
8:06 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. 53
"An Act establishing the Alaska Seismic Hazards Safety
Commission."
- MOVED CSHB 53(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 23
Advocating the retention of the electoral college system in its
present form.
- MOVED CSHJR 23(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 87
"An Act establishing the Alaska Veterans Advisory Council; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 87(MLV) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 213
"An Act relating to initiative and referendum petitions; and
providing for an effective date."
- BILL HEARING POSTPONED
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 25
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of
Alaska relating to initiative and referendum petitions.
- BILL HEARING POSTPONED
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 53
SHORT TITLE:SEISMIC HAZARDS SAFETY COMMISSION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)DAVIES
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/10/01 0054 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/10/01 0054 (H) MLV, STA, FIN
03/13/01 (H) MLV AT 3:30 PM CAPITOL 120
03/13/01 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
03/27/01 (H) MLV AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/27/01 (H) Moved CSHB 53(MLV) Out of
Committee
MINUTE(MLV)
03/28/01 0761 (H) COSPONSOR(S): GREEN
03/30/01 0786 (H) MLV RPT CS(MLV) 6DP
03/30/01 0786 (H) DP: MURKOWSKI, HAYES, GREEN,
KOTT,
03/30/01 0786 (H) CISSNA, CHENAULT
03/30/01 0786 (H) FN1: (GOV)
03/30/01 0786 (H) FN2: (DNR)
04/24/01 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HJR 23
SHORT TITLE:MAINTAIN ELECTORAL COLLEGE SYSTEM
SPONSOR(S): STATE AFFAIRS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/20/01 0662 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/20/01 0662 (H) STA
04/12/01 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/12/01 (H) <Bill Postponed to 4/17>
04/17/01 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/17/01 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/24/01 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 87
SHORT TITLE:ALASKA VETERANS ADVISORY COUNCIL
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/24/01 0154 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/24/01 0154 (H) MLV, STA, FIN
01/24/01 0154 (H) FN1: (MVA)
01/24/01 0155 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
02/20/01 (H) MLV AT 3:30 PM CAPITOL 120
02/20/01 (H) <Bill Canceled>
02/27/01 (H) MLV AT 3:30 PM CAPITOL 120
02/27/01 (H) Moved CSHB 87(MLV) Out of
Committee
MINUTE(MLV)
03/22/01 0684 (H) MLV RPT CS(MLV) 6DP
03/22/01 0685 (H) DP: KOTT, MASEK, GREEN,
HAYES,
03/22/01 0685 (H) CISSNA, CHENAULT
03/22/01 0685 (H) FN1: (MVA)
04/21/01 (H) STA AT 9:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/21/01 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard --
Time Change --
04/24/01 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 415
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 53.
SHELDON E. WINTERS, Attorney at Law
Lessmeier & Winters
Lobbyist for State Farm Insurance Company
431 North Franklin Street, Suite 400
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 53 and responded
to questions.
MILT WILTSE, Director
Central Office
Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys (DGGS)
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
794 University Ave, Suite 200
Fairbanks, Alaska 99707-3645
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 53 and responded
to questions.
CAROL CARROLL, Director
Administrative Services Division
Department of Military & Veterans Affairs (DMVA)
400 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 500
Juneau, Alaska 99811
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 87 on behalf of the
administration.
JOHN GAGUINE, Assistant Attorney General
Civil Division (Juneau)
Department of Law (DOL)
PO Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 87, voiced the
DOL's concerns and responded to questions.
MG PHILLIP E. OATES, Adjutant General/Commissioner
Department of Military and Veterans Affairs (DMVA)
PO Box 5800
Fort Richardson, Alaska 99505 0800
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 87, responded to
questions.
TERRI LAUTERBACH, Attorney
Legislative Legal Counsel
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Terry Miller Building, Room 329
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 87, responded to
questions as the drafter.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-47, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR JOHN COGHILL called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:06 a.m. Representatives
Coghill, Fate, Stevens, Crawford, and Hayes were present at the
call to order. Representatives James and Wilson arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 53 - SEISMIC HAZARDS SAFETY COMMISSION
Number 0035
CHAIR COGHILL announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 53, "An Act establishing the Alaska Seismic
Hazards Safety Commission." [Before the committee was CSHB
53(MLV).]
Number 0070
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
explained that HB 53 would establish the Alaska Seismic Hazards
Safety Commission (ASHSC), which would work out of the Office of
the Governor. The ASHSC would consist of a number of people who
are expert in earthquake issues and who would provide oversight
for the entire state of Alaska regarding mitigation of
earthquake hazards. With regard to the difference between
[earthquake] mitigation and [earthquake] response, he explained
that mitigation involves ensuring that the loss of life and
property are minimized to begin with, whereas response involves
rescue and cleanup after an earthquake occurs. Fundamentally,
the goal of the ASHSC would be to focus on prevention.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES noted that in the United States and other
"more advanced" countries, building codes/standards do much to
mitigate the loss of life and property. When there is a
"magnitude 5" earthquake in a country that does not have such
codes - where un-reinforced masonry is the standard - tens of
thousands of people lose their lives. By comparison, when there
is a magnitude 5 earthquake in the United States, it generally
results in very little damage and simply becomes another news
item. Building codes are the fundamental reason for this
difference. However, he added, "our" knowledge is not perfect;
there is still room for significant advances in building codes.
In Alaska, building codes are adopted municipality by
municipality; it's up to the individual municipalities to decide
whether they want to adopt various parts of the seismic code or
not. Much of Alaska, even the Fairbanks North Star Borough, for
example, has not adopted such a code. The building standards
are largely enforced indirectly through the insurance industry:
when a person applies for a mortgage, he/she is often required
to have an inspector look at the house to see whether it is
built according to codes.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said that since there are many areas in
Alaska that don't have building codes, he believes that having
the ASHSC in place to look at the state's building practices
will continue to advance the safety [levels] of Alaska's
buildings and hence, Alaska's citizens. He noted that even in a
fairly dramatic earthquake, about 80 percent of the loss is
actually just structural loss inside the buildings. Thus, from
a financial point of view, designing buildings so that lighting
and plumbing fixtures are attached correctly can become a huge
issue in terms of the building being functional right after an
earthquake. Taking care of things like computer systems -
making sure that computer systems are backed up offsite - are
very important in terms of a business plan, in terms of people
being able to function the next day after a large earthquake.
Number 0479
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES explained that the fundamental problem
that HB 53 is attempting to address is that large damaging
earthquakes occur very infrequently, hence, many people go
through their entire lives without experiencing one, which is
good, but this creates a tendency to ignore the hazards. "What
we're trying to do here is have a group that, over the long
haul, puts a little bit of time and energy into addressing these
issues so that when the event inevitably does occur, ... the
losses are minimized." He opined that spending a little bit of
money now [on HB 53], would save a huge amount of money later.
He added the ironic note that the "Good Friday earthquake" in
1964 in Alaska acted as a wakeup call for most of the western
United States; in the wake of that earthquake, those other
states established seismic hazard commissions, whereas Alaska,
which experienced that earthquake, didn't. He offered that he
is merely trying to catch up via HB 53.
CHAIR COGHILL asked whether any state [agencies] or
municipalities have come forward with any advice, counsel, or
information.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES noted that there are currently a number of
resources in the state: the Division of Emergency Services
(DES) under Department of Military & Veterans Affairs (DMVA) is
probably the most statewide in its focus, he opined, and does
some work with various communities along the lines of mitigation
via tsunami warnings, and actually receives small amounts of
federal money for this purpose. He said he considers this sort
of activity to be "mitigation work" because it allows people to
plan ahead and possibly avoid loss, which in turn avoids the
necessity for recovery efforts. He noted that there are other
resources at the federal level as well; the United States
Geological Survey (USGS) has some folks in Alaska who are
helping to run the seismic networks and volcano warning systems,
and who do provide some advice and counseling when issues
relating to hazards mitigation come along, although that is not
their primary focus.
Number 0687
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES also noted that there is a state
seismologist at the Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska,
who provides the primary impetus for recording earthquake
information, which is the basic data upon which decisions
regarding earthquake mitigation and hazard reduction are made.
At the municipal level, he added, Anchorage has a geo-technical
advisory commission that also provides comments on these types
of issues. He noted that the "state survey," primarily through
Rod Combellick, has done a great deal of work in the Anchorage
area aimed at understanding the frequency with which "Good
Friday type earthquakes" occur there. So there are already a
number of resources in the state, he said, but the [ASHSC]
established via HB 53 would be "the umbrella" that would
coordinate those resources and bring a little more focus to the
issue of mitigation.
CHAIR COGHILL mentioned that the Uniform Building Code is always
in the "upgrade" mode, and he opined that building with
earthquakes in mind has certainly been a part of that [process].
He asked whether there is any way of bringing the Uniform
Building Code to bear, other than through municipalities.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said, "We do it through state agencies
when they contract for buildings or [are] having buildings
built; we usually require as part of that, that the buildings be
built according to that code." In response to a question, he
said he anticipates that the [ASHSC] would look at what the
state is doing in terms of its own "building stock" to ensure
that the state adopts the newest provisions in the code.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS, after noting that he was not present
when Kodiak had a big earthquake, said that Kodiak already has
an extensive planning process: emergency preparedness teams
coordinate with fire departments and emergency shelters. The
equipment is all there, including beds provided by the Red
Cross, for the time period after an emergency occurs. He added
that Kodiak has adopted the Uniform Building Code. He said he
has never heard anyone clamoring for "more supervision on this."
He opined that although Representative Davies anticipates that
the ASHSC would simply coordinate agencies and activities
statewide, he is not sure that [lack of coordination] is a
problem at this point.
Number 0969
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES responded: "The purpose of this bill is
to do stuff that people aren't clamoring for." The problem, he
offered, is that people, during the course of their daily lives,
really don't deal with issues of building codes. He noted that
in his area, for example, very few people who are building a
house actually tie the two stories together with bolts in the
way that they should because it is not part of the building code
or practice; it's not that they're negligent, they just don't
know that this is the single most cost effective thing they can
do to mitigate problems. He explained that there are a variety
of things like that that are hidden from the ordinary citizen's
daily life because earthquakes are not experienced everyday.
"We have raincoats and we tend to put them on because we
experience rain on a fairly frequent basis; we don't worry about
earthquake hazards ... when ... designing a house, ... most
people don't have earthquake insurance, even."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES noted that earthquake insurance is very
expensive relative to the hazards in most areas of the state.
He opined that by having the right information, the cost of
earthquake insurance in Alaska could be reduced significantly
while still being actuarially sound from the insurance
industry's point of view. "It's those things that we don't look
at. A lot of the things that [Representative Stevens] talked
about are in that preparing-for-response [category], as opposed
to mitigation; mitigation ... primarily works through upgrading
the building code." Unless a person is a building contractor,
he/she really doesn't pay much attention to the code. He opined
that it is really important as a state to have a small group of
people who do pay attention to it. Representative Davies
mentioned that when he was the state's seismologist, there was a
proposed change to the seismic hazard map suggested by some
people out of southern California that was egregious and would
have cost the state over $10 million per year in unnecessary
building expense had he not prevented that change from
occurring.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated that he is not trying to create a
big bureaucracy or a regulatory agency with HB 53; he is just
trying to "create a group of people" that look out for the best
interest of the citizens of Alaska by providing good information
regarding building codes, so that when people go about their
daily business, it is done in a more cost-effective way.
Number 1191
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked what kind of information the ASHSC
would provide to the public. She opined that a lack of
knowledge is a big part of why people are resistant to complying
with building codes. She noted that HB 53 is proposing to
include people who are very knowledgeable about "these" issues.
She suggested that there should be opportunities for the ASHSC
to have "regular responses to the people," not only about how
they can build their buildings but also about how they can
protect themselves in the case of an earthquake. She asked if
such would be part of the ASHSC's duties or if its only purpose
would be to look at building code issues.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES replied that there is inevitable overlap
between mitigation and response activities, and while it is his
intent that the ASHSC focus on the mitigation part, where it is
appropriate it could also be a forum for providing response
information. He opined that the nexus would be strongest in the
area of preparing homeowners for things that they should look
for and tend to [before an earthquake] and things that they can
do [after an earthquake]. There are some very simple things
that people can do when looking through their own homes,
especially in Fairbanks where there are a lot of cabins built on
pilings, which enable a homeowner to get under the house and
look at everything and ensure that the main structure is
attached to the pilings. He noted another thing to look for is
that the furnace is secured so that during an earthquake, fires
don't start because of a loose furnace. He said that
information about these and other simple cost-effective steps
could be disseminated by the ASHSC via the Cooperative Extension
Service.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES noted that a lot of people in Alaska build
their own houses, and therefore incorporating information about
earthquake standards into the building courses offered by the
university would be another way of getting this information out
to the public.
CHAIR COGHILL remarked that he received a lot of helpful
information from the Cooperative Extension Service when he built
his own house.
Number 1449
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted that creating awareness is a good
idea. She also mentioned that even though it was reported that
Fairbanks did not sustain any damage during a recent earthquake,
some damage did occur but was not noticed until later; for
example, her well pipe broke away from her well pump and both
had to be replaced.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE said that although he applauds
Representative Davies for bringing forth this issue, he still
has concerns about the fiscal notes. He pointed out that
although there is an extensive program with a complex
administration outlined in HB 53, the fiscal notes don't
illustrate this. He said he really has to question whether
"you're going to get away with one part-time [position] at
$13,400" in fiscal year (FY) 2003. He said he expects to see
[the ASHSC] coming back to the legislature in future years
asking for more money.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES noted that if future legislatures believe
that [the ASHSC] has proved its merit and that it would be cost
effective to provide more money, then "that would be up to
them." He said his intent is that they rely heavily on the
existing expertise available in the state, and that that
aforementioned position would be a quarter-time position within
the governor's office - an existing staff person who, under
"other duties assigned," would have the job of coordinating the
meetings of the ASHSC. He added that there is a small amount of
travel [expense] anticipated: he expects that the ASHSC would
meet four times a year, twice via teleconference to keep the
costs down. He explained that most of the people involved would
be people like the person at the state geological survey and the
person at the geophysical institute, whose jobs, in part, are to
focus on these kinds of issues, and which is why he feels that
[the ASHSC] can get by with a fairly small budget; "because we
have a cadre of experts," both in the public sector and the
private sector, who are dedicated to and concerned with these
issues.
Number 1689
SHELDON E. WINTERS, Attorney at Law, Lessmeier & Winters,
Lobbyist for State Farm Insurance Company ("State Farm"), said
that State Farm strongly supports HB 53, particularly since a
representative of the insurance industry would be on the ASHSC.
He noted that the insurance industry participates "hand in hand"
with similar commissions in other states. He said he believes
that this type of commission is very beneficial to the public
for the reasons that Representative Davies has already stated.
In response to questions, he said that within the industry,
there are already catastrophe committees made up of
representatives from different insurance companies, so while he
has not thought out the details of such an appointment, he does
not foresee any problems with the governor choosing an
experienced representative from the insurance industry.
Number 1824
MILT WILTSE, Director, Central Office, Division of Geological &
Geophysical Surveys (DGGS), Department of Natural Resources
(DNR), testified via teleconference and noted that Rod
Combellick, mentioned earlier, is one of the DGGS's senior
geologists. Mr. Wiltse added that Mr. Combellick is extremely
knowledgeable; has professional connections with many people
working in the seismic hazards fields in Washington, Oregon, and
California; and is the lead person in the DGGS dealing with
seismic issues. Mr. Wiltse relayed that through Mr.
Combellick's tutelage, he is now more aware of the complexity of
dealing with disaster mitigation and recovery response. He
noted that the ASHSC could give conscious focus to the myriad of
things that could be done to mitigate earthquake damage, in
addition to coordinating the state's efforts on this issue.
MR. WILTSE noted that there are many people in Alaska working in
the [seismic hazards] field who focus on specific pieces of the
response problem, which is one of the reasons why Alaska's
disaster response team is so effective: there is a consortium
of people who focus on how to respond to a disaster. He added,
however, that Alaska doesn't have the same sort of consortium
tasked with putting together a comprehensive set of mitigation
measures - a strategic plan that could be followed year to year
throughout the state. He opined that putting a commission of
this sort in place and tasking them with coming up with that
strategic plan and focusing and coordinating the efforts across
the various agencies would move the state a great distance down
the road toward vastly decreasing the effects of any future
massive seismic event. He also opined that [HB 53] is a
tremendous idea and will pay tremendous dividends by formalizing
coordination efforts, getting people to recognize the
responsibility for thinking broadly, and bringing together the
efforts of the DMVA, Geological Survey, utility companies,
insurance industry, contractors, architects, engineers, and
other people involved in this issue. He added that he heartily
supports HB 53 both personally and as a state geologist.
CHAIR COGHILL noted that he is simply concerned that [the ASHSC]
might come in and say, "You've got to do all these things,"
which would cost the state millions of dollars. He asked Mr.
Wiltse how he envisions the ASHSC interacting with the DGGS.
MR. WILTSE posited that it would be an "interchange type of
setup"; the DGGS would bring the ASHSC the fundamental data
needed for its deliberations, such as strong motion seismic
measurements and geological data. This type of information
could then be forwarded to engineers so that they can design and
analyze the design of buildings and other structures such
bridges, transmission lines, pipelines, et cetera, in order to
include the types of safety factors needed to mitigate damage
from ground motions. He noted that [HB 53] sets the foundation
for trying to assess risk. In response to questions, he noted
that mitigation takes a conscious effort, which is currently not
made. He added that some people might focus on another "Good
Friday" type of earthquake, but the real risk could come from a
completely different type of more localized earthquake.
Number 2280
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS noted that it seems like "we've come a
long way" in terms of prediction of earthquakes. He asked Mr.
Wiltse if it is the DGGS that works on earthquake prediction
issues.
MR. WILTSE responded that the DGGS works on those issues to the
extent that it can, and it also coordinates those activities
with the university and to some extent with the USGS. He noted
that the DGGS doesn't have as good a tectonic model for Alaska
as is available for other states. He detailed, as an example,
some of the similar geological features between Los Angeles and
Anchorage, but pointed out that there is not as clear a picture
of Anchorage's features.
CHAIR COGHILL mentioned that the concept of HB 53 looks like a
pretty good idea.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS surmised then that if anyone is ever
going to begin coordinating the prediction of earthquakes, it
would probably be the ASHSC. He asked if that would indeed be
the case.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said that he envisions the ASHSC, not so
much doing the predicting themselves, but remaining
knowledgeable about the state of the art and encouraging those
activities within Alaska wherever it might be fruitful. He
added that another role of the ASHSC is to evaluate "charlatan"
predictions because local governments don't always have the
ability to do so. Earthquake prediction is not yet fully
developed to the point of being able to pinpoint exactly where
and when an earthquake will occur; currently, predictions can be
made only with regard to the probability of an earthquake
happening in any given zone. And yet, he noted, just knowing
even those probabilities can be very helpful in terms of
focusing mitigation efforts.
CHAIR COGHILL asked whether the ASHSC would have any
representation from the "private building area."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES offered that such representation is
[authorized by language on page 2, line 19, subsection (c)(7)],
which says: "three members from members of the public who are
knowledgeable in the fields of geology, seismology, hydrology,
geotechnical engineering, structural engineering, emergency
services, or planning." He relayed, however, that members of
the oil and pipeline industries have suggested to him that the
word "expert" should replace "knowledgeable".
Number 2542
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a motion to adopt Amendment 1,
deleting "knowledgeable" and replacing it with "expert" on page
2, line 19.
CHAIR COGHILL objected for the purpose of discussion. He noted
that it is pretty well lined out in paragraph (7) that these
three public members would be "professional" members. He asked
whether "expert" would denote some sort of certification.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES replied that it is just a question of the
level of expertise or knowledge; he did not have a specific
definition in mind for the word "expert". He relayed that the
concern of the industries suggesting the change is that members
should not simply be people who are trained in some other field
of science and just happen to have a little bit of knowledge in
the aforementioned fields; rather, the members should be people,
like structural engineers, for example, who are focused on
earthquake design, not just structural engineers who have taken
a course on earthquake design 25 years ago.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked how it is determined that someone is
an "expert".
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES suggested that the word "expert" would
merely offer the governor some guidance when choosing the public
members. He added that the distinction is that, "We want
somebody that really has some expertise," not somebody who just
has some casual knowledge.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE, after noting that paragraph (4) of the
"Powers and duties" section on page 3 says that the ASHSC shall
"gather, analyze, and disseminate information of general
interest on seismic hazard mitigation", asked how the
dissemination aspect of these duties would be accomplished
unless one of the public members is an expert in the media
field.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES explained that the "Powers and duties"
section were drawn fairly broadly so as not to constrain the
ASHSC. He added that the primary dissemination of information
would be done through professional channels as well as through
existing channels in the university's cooperative extension
service and the DMVA's DES.
Number 2704
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES withdrew Amendment 1, saying she likes HB
53 the way it is.
Number 2712
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS then made the motion to adopt Amendment
1, deleting "knowledgeable" and replacing it with "expert" on
page 2, line 19.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE objected.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS said it makes perfectly good sense to
change the language from "knowledgeable" to "expert"; after
noting that he has read a couple of books on Alaska geology, he
said that while he is knowledgeable on the subject, it would be
foolish to put him on the ASHSC. "What we need are people who
truly understand and have experience working in the field," he
stated.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE withdrew his objection.
Number 2745
CHAIR COGHILL noted that there were no other objections to
Amendment 1. Therefore, Amendment 1 was adopted.
Number 2753
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES moved to report CSHB 53(MLV), as amended,
out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB
53(STA) was reported from the House State Affairs Standing
Committee.
HJR 23 - MAINTAIN ELECTORAL COLLEGE SYSTEM
Number 2781
CHAIR COGHILL announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 23, Advocating the retention of the
electoral college system in its present form.
Number 2813
CHAIR COGHILL noted that he brought HJR 23 forward in its
present form as a House State Affairs Standing Committee bill.
He suggested that there is one area in HJR 23 that the committee
might consider changing: on page 1, line 12, delete "while
guaranteeing that the voices of this nation's minorities are
heard" and insert "while protecting the voice of this nation's
minority vote". He opined that the former language raises a lot
of questions. He mentioned that he is bringing forth HJR 23 at
the request of leadership.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that she is in favor of maintaining
the electoral college, but noted that she is not sure that the
language on lines 11-12 is a good statement to have at all. She
opined that minorities have a louder voice in this system than
in any other system. She added, however, that to her, the
electoral college is almost a state's rights issue. "I
understand the argument that we ought to have the will of the
majority of the people, [but] quite frankly I'm not convinced
that when we have completed an election, that we always have the
will of the majority of the people, because many of those people
don't even vote." She also noted that since many people outside
of Alaska don't have a clear understanding of some of the issues
specific to Alaska, the only way to ensure that Alaska has a
voice is through the electoral college. Therefore, when
speaking about minorities, she surmised that the discussion
really pertains to the "minority states" that have smaller
populations. She said she is not convinced that the language
saying, "ensures that the will of the majority is carried out
while guaranteeing that the voices of this nation's minority" is
a very good statement, period. She suggested that this language
should be removed altogether.
CHAIR COGHILL noted that he "stumbled over that very thought."
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS, as a college teacher, noted that the
hardest part of teaching U.S. history is dealing with the
electoral college. He opined that one of the strongest
arguments for the electoral college system is that at some
point, it does reach a conclusion, which is a real advantage -
at some point the election is over and someone becomes
president.
TAPE 01-47, SIDE B
Number 2956
REPRESENTATIVE FATE said that he agrees with Representative
James that it would be better to leave out [lines 11-12] on page
1, and that he would like to see the point made by
Representative Stevens added to HJR 23.
Number 2930
CHAIR COGHILL made motion to adopt [Amendment 1], striking lines
11-12 on page 1. There being no objection, [Amendment 1] was
adopted.
Number 2903
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS made a motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 2, adding to page 2 [line 4], wording to the effect:
"WHEREAS the electoral college brings a conclusion to the
electoral process." [Although the chair did not specifically
announce that Conceptual Amendment 2 was adopted, the drafter
treated Conceptual Amendment 2 as having been adopted and thus
incorporated it into the House State Affairs Standing Committee
Substitute.]
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said that although he believes in the
electoral system and wants to see it preserved, he has some
problems with the electors: the way it is set up now, an
elector, once he/she is selected, can vote for whomever he/she
pleases. He posited that a number of times in the past,
electors have been pledged to one candidate but voted for
another. He suggested that there should be steps taken to
ensure that once chosen, an elector votes as pledged.
CHAIR COGHILL said that such could be done statutorily since
each state is responsible for determining how its electors are
handled. He added that although such a change is outside the
scope of HJR 23, it is within the scope of the legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES said that he has never liked the electoral
college system; he opined that it disenfranchises voters by
taking away the whole concept of "one man/one vote." When
people are told to go out and vote, then told that their vote
counts but it doesn't really count, it is problematic. Half the
time, no one knows who the people are who are going to vote to
make the final decision. He relayed that when he's spoken to
people this year about the presidential election, a response he
receives is: "Why should I vote? Somebody else is going to
make this decision for me." He opined that the electoral
college is as politicized as any other system, referring to the
presidential election of 2000 as an example. He said his
understanding of the intent of the Founding Fathers when they
developed the electoral college system was based on the fear
that the average person who didn't own land didn't necessarily
understand politics. But after 200 years, he opined, the
average citizen has gone beyond that point; therefore, the use
of a one man/one vote system for electing the president makes
perfectly good sense. He added that his objection to [HJR 23]
has nothing to do with the 2000 presidential election, rather,
he simply has a fundamental problem with the electoral college
system.
CHAIR COGHILL posited that HJR 23 would bring the debate
regarding the electoral college system to congress.
Number 2658
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES, after noting that, "We are the United
States and we do have states' rights," opined that who a
president is does affect individual states. She said that she
refuses to put in a system that allows "that decision" to be
made by New York, Seattle, Portland, Chicago, and all those
other large cities, which is what would happen with any system
other than the electoral college. She voiced agreement with
Representative Crawford that there should be parameters around
the electors to the effect that once a state "goes in a certain
way," its electors follow suit and vote that same way.
CHAIR COGHILL noted that 24 states plus Washington D.C. require
the electors, either by statute or by pledge, to vote according
to the popular vote of their state.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE pointed out that there are similarities in
demographics between the current United States and the United
States at the time the Founding Fathers instituted the electoral
college system: now, as then, there are some very populated
states and some states with very low populations. He offered
that the electoral college system protected the elective system
so that the highly populated states could not always and forever
dominate the election system over those states that did not have
large populations.
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES said that he disagrees with Representatives
Fate and James. He opined that it is still the most populous
states that determine who the president is, even under the
electoral college system. The states with only three electoral
votes, such as Alaska, don't have the impact that more populous
states do. He reiterated that the Founding Fathers were afraid
that the common person would not be able to make such a
complicated decision as voting for a president; the electoral
college system was set up originally so that [only] landowners
could vote. He opined that although the electoral college
system has been in place for over 200 years, it has run its
course and it is now time to eradicate that system.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS remarked that even though Tacoma,
Washington, has about the same population as Alaska, Tacoma does
not have three electoral votes. He then referred to the
problems Florida had during the 2000 presidential election and
noted that only recently has Florida been able to finalize its
election results; without the electoral college system, the
United States would have had to wait until now to determine who
its president would be. Because the electoral college system is
in place, a decision was made - regardless of whether it is
right or wrong - and "we now have a president."
Number 2327
CHAIR COGHILL offered that the electoral college system
preserves a republican form of government, versus a pure
democracy.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD, on the issue of why neither Bush nor
Gore visited Alaska during the 2000 presidential campaign,
opined that it is because everyone assumed that Alaska would
vote for the Republican candidate and so "both candidates just
wrote our state off as already being decided." He opined that,
"if we had a proportional system, we could make them pay more
attention to us."
CHAIR COGHILL opined that if it is left to just a popular vote,
"we certainly wouldn't get their attention." At least with
three votes, Alaska gets some degree of attention, he added.
Number 2215
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES moved to report HJR 23, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations. There being no
objection, CSHJR 23(STA) was reported from the House State
Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 87 - ALASKA VETERANS ADVISORY COUNCIL
Number 2170
CHAIR COGHILL announced that the last order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 87, "An Act establishing the Alaska Veterans
Advisory Council; and providing for an effective date." [Before
the committee was CSHB 87(MLV).]
Number 2165
CHAIR COGHILL mentioned that he has a committee substitute (CS)
that differs from CSHB 87(MLV), in that language requiring two
legislative members to sit on the council has been removed. He
opined that members of the legislature should not sit on
councils within the executive branch. [This CS was not provided
in the committee secretary's packet.]
CHAIR COGHILL called an at-ease from 9:09 a.m. to 9:10 a.m.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she disagrees with that point and that
she prefers CSHB 87(MLV). She noted that there are many
"committees" within the administration that have members of the
legislature appointed to them. "There is an advantage for
anyone who is doing an advisory issue," which may result in
legislation or otherwise fiscally impact the state, to have
someone from the legislature on their council. She opined that
having members of the legislature on the Alaska Veterans
Advisory Council would provide the council with a "soft pillow"
in the discussion process in the event that the council decides
to recommend legislation or otherwise affect a department's
budget.
Number 1974
CAROL CARROLL, Director, Administrative Services Division,
Department of Military & Veterans Affairs (DMVA), explained that
the DMVA would like to see the Alaska Veterans Advisory Council
instituted in statute, adding that the council has been of great
value to the DMVA in fulfilling its mission of advocating for
veterans' issues. The council acts as the eyes and ears of the
DMVA for veterans at both the state and national levels. She
said that under HB 87, the council would continue the work it
currently does, noting that the current administration
originally created the council via "Administrative Order." The
council makes recommendations on issues of interest to veterans
in Alaska to the DMVA, such as benefits for veterans and
recognition of veterans' services. She noted that HB 87
stipulates that the council would include the legislature in its
discussions regarding any recommendations to the DMVA and the
governor. She also mentioned that the chair of the council
currently provides all of the council's minutes to the chair of
the House Special Committee on Military and Veterans' Affairs.
She concluded by saying that the DMVA anticipates that "that
sort of activity" will continue, and because the DMVA values
what the council does for it, it would like to see the council
established in statute.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked how the department felt about
including members of the legislature on the council. She noted
that in the past, she has served as an appointee on some of the
administration's committees, and she found it very helpful in
terms of creating a dialog between the administration and the
legislature regarding legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES indicated he agreed with Chair Coghill:
having legislative members on the council is not necessary given
that the chair of the House Special Committee on Military and
Veterans' Affairs currently receives the council's minutes.
Having the legislature involved in this advisory council would
just make for an additional layer of people who are not needed,
he opined.
CHAIR COGHILL mentioned that there is a letter from the attorney
general in members' packets. [This letter was not provided in
the committee secretary's packet.]
Number 1656
JOHN GAGUINE, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division
(Juneau), Department of Law (DOL), noted that the aforementioned
letter, written in March, relayed the DOL's concerns about
possible constitutional problems with CSHB 87(MLV). He said
that his goal today is to make it clear to the committee that
the administration views HB 87 as an important matter. With
regard to the points addressed in the letter, he explained that
appointing legislators to an executive branch committee would -
in the DOL's opinion - violate the "dual office holding
prohibition" of the Alaska State Constitution - Article II,
Section 5 - and other separation-of-powers issues. When asked
about other executive branch committees that have had
legislative members appointed to them, he said that the
administration has taken the position that, as a matter of
comity to the legislature, they were not going to challenge
those committees. He added that he could not speak to whether
the administration would behave in the same fashion toward CSHB
87(MLV).
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted that when she served on the Alaska
Seafood Marketing Institute (ASMI) board, although she was not a
voting member, she had opportunity to discuss issues. As a
member of the Grant Review and Bond Reimbursement Committee of
the Department of Education, during drafting of the regulations
pertaining to how schools are built and how to be reimbursed for
building schools, she did have a vote. With regard to HB 87,
she asked whether not allowing the legislative appointees to
vote would change [the DOL's opinion].
MR. GAGUINE said he did not think it would change anything since
the legislative members would still be members, and, as a mere
advisory committee, having a vote may not be that important
anyway.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES, noting that since the administration has
chosen not to challenge any of the other executive branch
committees that have legislative members, asked Mr. Gaguine why
he is challenging CSHB 87(MLV).
MR. GAGUINE replied that he is merely expressing the DOL's
concerns regarding CSHB 87(MLV), as is done for any legislation
to which the DOL has concerns.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES posited that having members of the
legislature on the Alaska Veterans Advisory Council would reduce
the likelihood of conflict related to legislation arising
amongst the various parties involved in veterans' issues.
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES reiterated that the legislature currently
receives the council's minutes, thus providing safeguards
against conflict.
Number 1342
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted that while it is true that the
legislature is kept informed of the council's actions, the
legislature currently has no voice in the council's discussions
and decisions. She continued:
What I'm looking for is a smooth transition between
that group of folks and the legislature, as opposed to
having any kind of a conflict. And I think that this
is an issue which could ensure that we wouldn't have
that conflict because you have a viable person in both
the House and Senate to support this decision that
came out. I'm not saying it would be any different
than it currently is, in this recommendation, but I
just see that if we do it in other areas, we ought to
do it in this one. If we separate this one out, then
it tells me you don't want to know what we [think] -
you're just going to come and tell us what you want us
to do.
CHAIR COGHILL noted that this is a good point; "when people do
something in a commission and [then] come to the legislature, we
automatically become adversarial rather than inclusive."
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS said that although he appreciates the
separation-of-power concept, he did not see how sitting on an
advisory council could be considered a dual-office violation.
As an example, he said that he would first and foremost view
Representative James as a member of the legislature rather than
as a member of a council, board, or committee on which she
happens to sit. He said he sees a real advantage in having
legislators on various [executive branch] committees because it
enables those legislators to come back to the rest of the
legislature and explain the committee's decisions, and vice
versa. He asked whether the Alaska Veterans Advisory Council
could truly be considered an "office."
MR. GAGUINE said that it has been the position of the DOL that
the constitutional prohibition against dual office holding
prohibits legislators from holding "any other office or position
of profit...." He specified that the word "office" stands alone
in this prohibition [as opposed to "position of profit"], and
that membership on an executive branch committee, even an
advisory committee, is an "office". He admitted that there are
probably good policy arguments, both for and against allowing
legislators to serve on [executive branch] committees such as
the Alaska Veterans Advisory Council, but the Alaska State
Constitution, as interpreted by the DOL, prohibits dual office
holding regardless of the policy arguments.
Number 1125
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said she would like to know what the
definition of "office" is, and whether it means an elected
office or an appointed office.
MR. GAGUINE replied: "In this case it has to be an appointed
office because this is a legislator holding an office in the
executive branch; the only elected offices are, obviously,
governor and lieutenant governor and you can't hold both of
those."
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON noted that some other states do allow
this; it is not uncommon for legislators [in other states] to be
appointed to many different committees.
MR. GAGUINE said that he could not speak to the constitutional
framework of those other states.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON noted that it does help to have the
legislative viewpoint on executive branch committees, and it
provides continuity when making decisions. She added that
obviously, the legislator on any such committee is not going to
sway the whole committee when the legislator is only 1 out of 19
or 21 members.
Number 0923
MG PHILLIP E. OATES, Adjutant General/Commissioner, Department
of Military and Veterans Affairs (DMVA), explained that there
are many ways in which the veteran's voice can be heard. One of
the ways is through the DMVA. There are also three main
organizations that exist - the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the
United States (VFW), the Disabled American Veterans (DAV), and
the American Legion. He added that the "federal VA" also has a
voice, as well as the many veterans around the state serving as
advocates. Each one of those entities serves a different
purpose, and the idea behind the Alaska Veterans Advisory
Council is to talk about the overarching policy needs in order
to assist the governor and legislature in coming up with the
policies that are appropriate for Alaska's veterans.
GENERAL OATES said that he agrees with Representative Hayes's
position. The purpose is not to cut anyone out of the
discussions or deliberations. "We have one of the most, if not
the most, active military and veteran's affairs committees here
in our own House of Representatives, probably of any state in
the union." He noted that a couple of good points in CSHB
87(MLV) are that the council shall advise the legislature, which
is highly appropriate, and shall annually make recommendations
to the legislature, along with the governor and the DMVA. He
opined, however, that there is value in having a council that
does not have himself or someone else from the governor's staff
as a member; furthermore, it will still be possible to interact
with the council and receive information from them without being
a part of the process.
GENERAL OATES noted that by putting the Alaska Veterans Advisory
Council in statute, it elevates the importance of veterans and
gives them the status by which they can advocate veterans' needs
to the legislature, the governor, and the DMVA. He also noted,
based on his 32 years of military experience, that neither the
military nor the veterans are political activists; he said that
one of the strengths of the military is that they have "been
raised" to keep out of politics. He added that this thread of
reasoning is also appropriate in the establishment of the
council; the council and the military should work for the
civilian leaders of the military - the legislature and Congress,
respectively. To illustrate what the Alaska Veterans Advisory
Council has done to date, he said that the council has been very
helpful with regard to a number of issues: the bill giving high
school diplomas to World War II veterans, arranging for
veterans' status for the Alaska Territorial Guardsman, and
making recommendations to the governor each year regarding
recognition for the veteran who has done the most for all
veterans in the state. He concluded by saying that the
legislature has a voice in the Alaska Veterans Advisory Council,
and that the council will work with the legislature as
effectively as with any other body.
Number 0504
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES reiterated her position that having
legislators on the Alaska Veterans Advisory Council would help
during deliberations, and opined that had there been legislators
on the council during discussions regarding the Pioneers' and
Veterans' Home, issues could have been resolved in a smoother
fashion. She stated that she is in favor of placing the Alaska
Veterans Advisory Council in statute, but added that she is
distressed because, although there are legislators on other
executive branch committees, it appears that this council is not
being treated the same way, as if to say that veterans' issues
are not as important or that it does not matter what the
legislature can bring to the table regarding these issues.
CHAIR COGHILL noted that the current issue is whether the
legislature would be included in the discussion at the council
level or would simply get the report from the council after
decisions are already made; it becomes problematic when the
legislature is accused of "playing volley" with issues when they
have not been included in the discussion process to begin with.
TAPE 01-48, SIDE A
Number 0001
GENERAL OATES said that it is very shortsighted to think that
the legislature is not a full participant in any policy
implemented by [the DMVA]; "I will not achieve my goals by
having good ideas [if] we don't work cooperatively with the
legislature." He promised that [the Alaska Veterans Advisory
Council] would work with the legislature in any way it deems
fit. He concluded by saying that he just thinks it is better to
have the Alaska Veterans Advisory Council work for the
legislature, without having a member of the legislature or an
executive branch employee as a member of the council.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD opined that having legislators on the
council may "exert undue influence" on the council in its
deliberations, and it would be better to just let the council
deliberate and then bring its decision to the legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS opined that the comments heard from the
department of law are "just absolutely silly and contradictory."
To illustrate this, he referred to page 2, lines 26-27 of CSHB
87(MLV), which says "The council shall elect a chair from among
its members who are not state officers or employees"; according
to the DOL, everyone on the council will be considered "an
officer" - having been appointed to the "office" - therefore,
the implication is that no one can be chair. He suggested: "We
should do what we darned well please, and if the [DOL] wants to
sue us over this issue, let them go ahead; let's get this
settled in the courts."
Number 0342
TERRI LAUTERBACH, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel,
Legislative Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs
Agency, said that although she would not necessarily typify the
DOL's comments as "silly, ... I can probably agree that we don't
know how the courts would rule" with regard to having
legislative members on the council. She added that in its
letter, the DOL made some statements that have not yet been
confirmed by the courts. With regard to the statement about
Article I, Section 5, that the term "office" stands alone and
that "of profit" does not pertain to it, she said that it is not
certain yet whether "of profit" applies to both "office" and
"position", or only to the latter. Therefore, it is not quite
fair to say that someone who serves in an office but is not
compensated is still covered by this dual office holding
prohibition; "the courts haven't told us that." She noted that
the other reasons listed in the letter seem to her to be less
applicable to an advisory [council] that has no power; there
can't be a concentration of power when the [council] itself has
no power. Therefore, she surmised, the advisory nature of this
council is also something the court would look at when
determining whether the purposes for not allowing dual office
holding are violated by having legislators on this particular
council.
MS. LAUTERBACH, on the DOL's concerns regarding separation of
powers, pointed out that council members would not be executive
officers: they don't carry out laws, they don't make decisions,
they simply serve in an advisory capacity. She added:
While we're not sure whether the court would agree
with us or not, in [Legislative Legal and Research
Services], we think there's ample room there for the
legislature to take this risk, and ample room for the
court to decide that in this case - in an advisory
commission where no one's paid, or at least the
legislators aren't paid for anything other than their
[legislative] salaries - ... that this is ok. They're
not executive officers, ... they're not making lots of
money, [and] they're not exerting power. On the other
hand, we don't know for sure, in this case, how a
court would come out 'cause there's no precedent. So
it becomes a policy call, both on whether you think
legislators would have too much personal power - not
executive/legal power, but personal power - to sway
the members of the board, and whether you think that's
OK; or, whether the advantages of having legislative
input are outweighed by the disadvantage of a possible
risk of litigation.
MS. LAUTERBACH, on a question regarding the staggered three-year
terms for members, responded that this provision applies only to
council members who are not state officers or employees;
therefore, legislators, being employees of the state, are not
affected by this provision. In conclusion, she noted that the
DOL has taken the position in the past that advisory councils
are probably not covered by the prohibition against dual office
holding. In fact, an opinion from the attorney general's office
in 1977 pertaining to a temporary advisory commission said that
the prohibition did not apply, she noted, and added that some of
the DOL's concerns could be alleviated by putting a sunset on
the Alaska Veterans Advisory Council. She pointed out that many
statutes have sunset dates, which makes those statutes more or
less temporary.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked Ms. Lauterbach whether her
interpretation is that serving on this council would constitute
dual office holding.
MS. LAUTERBACH reiterated that this is a question that has not
yet been decided by the courts and, therefore, she could not
foresee how the courts might decide should the question come
before them.
Number 0826
CHAIR COGHILL noted that the issue before the House State
Affairs Standing Committee is whether to report CSHB 87(MLV)
from committee.
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES objected.
Number 0900
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Fate, James,
Stevens, Wilson, and Coghill voted to report CSHB 87(MLV) from
House State Affairs Standing Committee. Representatives
Crawford and Hayes voted against it. Therefore, CSHB 87(MLV)
was reported from the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 0952
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:52
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|