Legislature(1997 - 1998)

02/12/1998 08:02 AM House STA

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
txt
       HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE                                  
                 February 12, 1998                                             
                     8:02 a.m.                                                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                
                                                                               
Representative Jeannette James, Chair                                          
Representative Ivan Ivan, Vice Chairman                                        
Representative Ethan Berkowitz                                                 
Representative Fred Dyson                                                      
Representative Kim Elton                                                       
Representative Mark Hodgins                                                    
Representative Al Vezey                                                        
                                                                               
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                 
                                                                               
All members present                                                            
                                                                               
COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                             
                                                                               
CS FOR SENATE BILL 214(STA)                                                    
"An Act relating to the possession of a concealed deadly weapon by             
peace officers and by chief administrative officers of municipal               
police departments; relating to the definition of police officer;              
and providing for an effective date."                                          
                                                                               
     - MOVED CSSB 214(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                    
                                                                               
* HOUSE BILL 259                                                               
"An Act relating to the maintenance of voter lists and to the                  
inactivation and cancellation of voter registration; and providing             
for an effective date."                                                        
                                                                               
     - MOVED HB 259 OUT OF COMMITTEE                                           
                                                                               
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 50                                                      
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska                
relating to a public corporation established to manage the                     
permanent fund.                                                                
                                                                               
     - MOVED HJR 50 OUT OF COMMITTEE                                           
                                                                               
HOUSE BILL 81                                                                  
"An Act relating to the members of the board and staff of the                  
Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation."                                            
                                                                               
     - MOVED HB 81 OUT OF COMMITTEE                                            
                                                                               
CS FOR SENATE BILL 105(FIN) AM                                                 
"An Act relating to legislative and executive branch ethics;                   
relating to campaign finances for candidates for state office;                 
relating to the conduct and regulation of lobbyists with respect to            
public officials; relating to the filing of disclosures by certain             
state employees and officials; making a conforming amendment to the            
definition of `public official' for employment security statutes;              
and providing for an effective date."                                          
                                                                               
     - HEARD AND HELD; ASSIGNED TO SUBCOMMITTEE                                
                                                                               
(* First public hearing)                                                       
                                                                               
PREVIOUS ACTION                                                                
                                                                               
BILL: SB 214                                                                   
SHORT TITLE: PEACE OFFICERS/CONCEALED WEAPONS                                  
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) MILLER, GREEN, KELLY                                    
                                                                               
Jrn-Date    Jrn-Page           Action                                          
01/12/98      2166     (S)  PREFILE RELEASED 1/2/98                            

01/12/98 2166 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)

01/12/98 2166 (S) STA

01/20/98 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211

01/20/98 (S) MINUTE(STA)

01/21/98 (S) RLS AT 11:25 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203

01/21/98 (S) MINUTE(RLS)

01/21/98 2250 (S) STA RPT CS 5DP NEW TITLE

01/21/98 2251 (S) DP: GREEN, DUNCAN, MILLER, MACKIE, WARD

01/21/98 2251 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE TO SB & CS (DPS)

01/23/98 2276 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE TO CS (ADM)

01/22/98 2261 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 1/22/98

01/22/98 2266 (S) HELD TO 1/26/98

01/26/98 2301 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME

01/26/98 2301 (S) STA CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT

01/26/98 2301 (S) AM NO 1 OFFERED BY ADAMS

01/26/98 2301 (S) AM NO 1 FAILED Y3 N13 E4

01/26/98 2303 (S) AM NO 2 OFFERED BY LINCOLN

01/26/98 2303 (S) AM NO 2 FAILED Y2 N14 E4

01/26/98 2305 (S) AM NO 3 NOT OFFERED

01/26/98 2305 (S) AM NO 4 OFFERED BY LINCOLN

01/26/98 2305 (S) AM NO 4 FAILED Y2 N14 E4

01/26/98 2307 (S) ADVANCE TO 3RD RDG FLD Y14 N2 E4

01/26/98 2307 (S) THIRD READING 1/27 CALENDAR

01/27/98 2319 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 214(STA)

01/27/98 2319 (S) PASSED Y18 N- E2

01/27/98 2319 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE

01/27/98 2321 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)

01/28/98 2148 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)

01/28/98 2148 (H) STATE AFFAIRS 02/12/98 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 BILL: HB 259 SHORT TITLE: VOTER LISTS & VOTER REGISTRATION SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 04/22/97 1267 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 04/22/97 1267 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE 04/22/97 1267 (H) FISCAL NOTE (GOV) 04/22/97 1267 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER 02/12/98 Text (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 BILL: HJR 50 SHORT TITLE: PERMANENT FUND PUBLIC CORPORATION SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) JAMES, Vezey Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action

01/21/98 2099 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)

01/21/98 2099 (H) STA, JUDICIARY, FINANCE

01/29/98 Text (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 02/12/98 Text (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 BILL: HB 81 SHORT TITLE: PERMANENT FUND BOARD MEMBERS & STAFF SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) JAMES Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action

01/22/97 122 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)

01/22/97 122 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE 02/20/97 Text (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 02/20/97 Text (H) MINUTE(STA) 02/25/97 Text (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 02/25/97 Text (H) MINUTE(STA) 03/06/97 Text (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 03/06/97 Text (H) MINUTE(STA) 03/27/97 Text (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 03/27/97 Text (H) MINUTE(STA) 02/12/98 Text (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 BILL: SB 105 SHORT TITLE: ETHICS/LOBBYING/CAMPAIGN FINANCE SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF LEGISLATIVE ETHICS COMMITTEE Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 02/25/97 494 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 02/25/97 494 (S) STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE 03/26/97 873 (S) STA RPT CS 3DP NEW TITLE 03/26/97 873 (S) DP: GREEN, MILLER, WARD 03/26/97 873 (S) FISCAL NOTE TO SB (ADM) 03/26/97 873 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE TO SB (LAA) 03/26/97 873 (S) FISCAL NOTE TO CS (ADM) 04/16/97 1163 (S) FIN RPT CS 2DP 5NR NEW TITLE 04/16/97 1163 (S) DP: PEARCE; DP IF AM: PHILLIPS 04/16/97 1163 (S) NR: SHARP, PARNELL, ADAMS, TORGERSON, 04/16/97 1163 (S) DONLEY 04/16/97 1163 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN APPLIES (LAA) 04/16/97 1163 (S) ZERO FNS TO CS (LABOR, LAW) 04/16/97 1163 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN APPLIES (LAA) 04/18/97 1276 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR & 1NR 4/18/97 04/18/97 1279 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME 04/18/97 1279 (S) FIN CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT 04/18/97 1280 (S) AM NO 1 OFFERED AND WITHDRAWN 04/18/97 1281 (S) AM NO 2 FAILED Y4 N13 E3 04/18/97 1282 (S) AM NO 3 FAILED Y4 N13 E3 04/18/97 1283 (S) AMENDMENTS 4, 5 NOT OFFERED 04/18/97 1283 (S) AM NO 6 ADOPTED Y12 N5 E3 04/18/97 1285 (S) AM NO 7 FAILED Y7 N10 E3 04/18/97 1286 (S) AM NO 8 FAILED Y5 N12 E3 04/18/97 1287 (S) AM NO 9 ADOPTED Y17 N- E3 04/18/97 1291 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN CONSENT 04/18/97 1291 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 105(FIN) AM 04/18/97 1292 (S) PASSED Y15 N2 E3 04/18/97 1292 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE 04/18/97 1292 (S) LINCOLN NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION 04/21/97 1334 (S) RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD READING 04/21/97 1335 (S) RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 10 UNAN CONSENT 04/21/97 1335 (S) AM NO 10 ADOPTED Y14 N5 E1 04/21/97 1336 (S) AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING 04/21/97 1337 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y17 N2 E1 04/21/97 1337 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE 04/21/97 1370 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H) 04/22/97 1232 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 04/22/97 1233 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE 02/12/98 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 WITNESS REGISTER PORTIA PARKER, Legislative Assistant to Senator Mike Miller Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 107 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-4711 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf on Senator Miller, sponsor of SB 214. LEONARD ABEL, Ph.D. Program Administrator Community Mental Health Service Division of Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Department of Health and Social Services P.O. Box 110620 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0620 Telephone: (907) 465-3370 POSITION STATEMENT: Suggested SB 214 be amended. JAYNE ANDREEN, Executive Director Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Department of Public Safety P.O. Box 111200 Juneau, Alaska 99811 Telephone: (907) 465-4356 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 214. DEL SMITH, Deputy Commissioner Department of Public Safety P.O. Box 111200 Juneau, Alaska 99811 Telephone: (907) 465-4362 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 214. DENNY WEATHERS c/o P.O. 1791 Cordova, Alaska 99574 Telephone: (907)424-3745 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 214, supported SB 141 [1997]. ERIC WEATHERS c/o P.O. 1791 Cordova, Alaska 99574 Telephone: (907)424-3745 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 214. CHARLES BRANCH P.O. Box 1692 Cordova, Alaska 99574 Telephone: (907) 424-3894 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 214. GAIL FENUMIAI, Election Coordinator Division of Elections Office of the Lieutenant Governor P.O. Box 110017 Juneau, Alaska 99811 Telephone: (907) 465-4611 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 259. KATHLEEN STRASBAUGH, Assistant Attorney General Civil Division Department of Law P.O. Box 110300 Juneau, Alaska 99811 Telephone: (907) 465-3600 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 259. PATRICK LOUNSBURY, Legislative Secretary to Representative James Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 102 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-3743 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of Representative James, sponsor of HJR 50. BEN BROWN, Legislative Administrative Assistant to Senator Kelly Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 101 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-4823 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on SB 105. GARY BADER, citizen and Chairman of the State Personnel Board 10701 Glazanof Drive Anchorage, Alaska 99516 Telephone: (907) 346-2719 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 105. SUZIE BARNETT, Legislative Ethics Committee P.O. Box 101468 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Telephone: (907) 258-8172 POSITION STATEMENT: Available to answer questions on SB 105. JOE DONAHUE, Member of the Legislative Ethics Committee Office P.O. Box 1736 Kenai, Alaska 99611 Telephone: (907) 283-8051 POSITION STATEMENT: Available to answer question on SB 105. MIKE MCMULLEN, Manager Division of Personnel Department of Administration P.O. Box 110201 Juneau, Alaska 99811 Telephone: (907) 465-4431 POSITION STATEMENT: Present to testify on Executive Branch Ethics Act on SB 105. STEVEN (NEIL) SLOTNICK, Assistant Attorney General Commercial Section Department of Law P.O. Box 11030 Juneau, Alaska 99811 Telephone: (907) 465-3600 POSITION STATEMENT: Present to testify on executive branch portion of SB 105. ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 98-16, SIDE A Number 0001 CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES called the House State Affairs Standing Committee meeting to order at 8:02 a.m. Members present at the call to order were Representatives James, Ivan, Dyson, Hodgins and Vezey. Representatives Berkowitz and Elton arrived at 9:00 a.m. CSSB 214(STA) - PEACE OFFICERS/CONCEALED WEAPONS Number 0010 CHAIR JAMES announced the first order of business is CSSB 214(STA), "An Act relating to the possession of a concealed deadly weapon by peace officers and by chief administrative officers of municipal police departments; relating to the definition of police officer; and providing for an effective date," sponsored by Senator Mike Miller. Number 0018 PORTIA PARKER, Legislative Assistant to Senator Mike Miller, testified on behalf of Senator Miller. She said Senators Miller and Green introduced SB 214 to correct an amendment, which was proposed by the Alaska Peace Officers Association, and adopted into SB 141 last year. The impact of that amendment was not realized until after the bill had passed and was sent to the Governor. It was neither the intent of the Peace Officers Association, nor the intent of the sponsors that that would be the effect in regard to police officers, chiefs of police, and law enforcement officers. MS. PARKER stated SB 214 corrects the amendment which requires peace officers to carry concealed [weapons], both on and off duty, to be certified by the Alaska Police Standards Council. She indicated there are law enforcement officers that are on probation for their first year, are not yet certified, and do not fall under the exemption. Those officers would now have to obtain a concealed handgun permit before they could carry on or off the job. Number 0075 LEONARD ABEL, Ph.D., Program Administrator, Community Mental Health Service, Division of Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities, Department of Health and Social Services, testified before the committee. He said he would like the committee to consider a possible amendment. MR. ABEL indicated he is a supporter of concealed carry and has a permit. He is also a mental health professional and the Community Mental Health Service's Program Administrator for the state. You cannot at the time of the application, or five years prior to that, have a mental illness as defined in AS 47.30.915. Mental illness means an organic mental or emotional impairment that has substantial adverse effect on an individual's ability to exercise conscientious control of the individual's actions or ability to perceive reality, or to reason, or to understand. A minor problem like nail biting is not going to constitute a mental illness under that definition. MR. ABEL pointed out the effect of SB 141, in the recent veto override, is to delete that language and adopt a federal standard that says that you cannot have a concealed carry permit if you have ever been committed. Most people that have a severe mental illness, that comes to the attention of the authorities, are not committed because our statutes allow you to voluntarily enter a hospital, or a treatment program and avoid the commitment process. Mr. Abel said he believes SB 141 created a situation where very ill individuals may apply for and receive a concealed carry permit. That concerns him. Number 0141 MR. ABEL said if you had an illness that was severe, you had to wait at least five years before you could apply. If you had an incurable mental illness like schizophrenia or bi-polar disorder [manic depressive], you are barred for life from getting that permit. Those illnesses that (indisc.) very unstable - very quickly if you go off medication. The total bar does not bother him. He noted that he did not believe it is necessarily a severe (indisc.) violation of rights. MR. ABEL said, "What the original language did was allow, one case so far, a very ill person to be denied a permit. When this individual notified a relative that he had applied, he said he believed he was being controlled by malevolent forces, he needed that gun to protect himself from these imagined evil forces. Consequently, his relative notified the Department of Public Safety and the permit was denied." Mr. Abel suggested SB 214 be amended to restore the original mental health language. Number 0182 REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON asked if there is a record of patients having submitted themselves for treatment that Public Safety offices could avail themselves of. MR. ABEL replied no, confidentiality laws would not permit it, it would have to surface like the incident mentioned. A lot of cases would not come to the attention under normal circumstances. Number 0198 REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY suggested this subject be addressed in a separate bill. He said, "I think we have an obligation, in light of the fact that we overrode a governor's veto on a bill to move this correction forward as expeditiously as possible. Amending it unnecessarily would definitely delay that process by a period of several weeks at a minimum...." CHAIR JAMES said she was the first person to put the concealed carry issue on the table. She said we have struggled with the issues of mental health and the fear of guns. The fear of someone, who is mentally disabled, having a concealed handgun is going to be a problem. According to federal law, that person could have a gun. Not allowing them to have a concealed handgun does not necessarily mean that they cannot have one. She noted she is familiar with the case Mr. Abel mentioned and said she would be happy to discuss his concern in a separate provision. Number 0251 JAYNE ANDREEN, Executive Director, Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, Department of Public Safety, testified before the committee to express the council's concern with SB 141 and the impact that it would have on domestic violence victims. The Governor's Domestic Violence Summit met in Alaska in December. National leaders from around the country attended to help access how Alaska is doing in terms of its statutory and practical responses to domestic violence. MS. ANDREEN said Alaska has gone a long way with the Domestic Violence Act of 1996 in establishing 85 percent of the national model code. The council is taking a serious look at the full gambit of crimes that impact domestic violence victims and recognizing them as such. A concern is SB 141 adopted language that references federal statutes in terms of defining what a domestic violence history and crime is. She said it seriously eliminates a number of domestic violence offenses that were acknowledged, recognized and prosecuted. All misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence now are not considered part of the criteria that must be looked at in the criminal history in terms of being eligible for a concealed handgun permit. A number of relationships that constitute domestic violence are no longer covered because they are not recognized by federal guidelines. This is non-spousal relationships, or relationships where there is not a common child and eliminates all dating domestic violence. MS. ANDREEN indicated it also eliminates Alaska's emergency and ex parte orders as being accepted for those that are eligible for a concealed handgun permit. She said we realize that emergency in particular ex parte orders are very important tools for victims seeking protection. A significant number of the protective orders issued are under the emergency and ex parte process. The council is also concerned about the exclusionary language which limits the prohibition of bringing concealed handguns into domestic violence shelters. Many people think "shelters" is the term for a domestic violence program. There are programs in Alaska that operate as a safe home program and do not provide the residential services and do not meet the definition of the shelter. Number 0306 DEL SMITH, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Public Safety came before the committee. He stated he worked with the Alaska Peace Officers Association and the Alaska Association of Police Chiefs to address the "cop problem" in SB 141. Senate Bill 214, "cop fix- it," needs to be in effect before SB 141 or the problem of disarming 100 police officers will come about. He noted the language regarding domestic violence, the mentally ill, and indicted felons changed substantially. Mr. Smith said, "Although I'd like to see some other changes in this bill, I realize that by adding amendments and slowing it down, it might not do what it needs to do." The Alaska Peace Officers Association, and the Alaska Association of Chiefs of Police all agreed SB 214 fixes the problem. Number 0331 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated prior to passing the concealed weapon carry law back in 1994, it was not legal for peace officers to carry under many circumstances. There was never prosecution, it was always assumed that the law authorizing them to be peace officers, to carry a weapon, and to use legal force superseded the laws against carrying. He said, "What I'm referring to is when a police officer was out of their jurisdiction, or off duty in a place serving alcoholic beverages." That was not the legislative intent, when we passed the laws against carrying concealed weapons, to exempt police officers. MR. SMITH replied he is correct, you could carry in the course of your employment. However, some departments wanted officers to carry weapons at all times, should something occur. He said, "It was very hazy as to whether, for instance as an Anchorage police officer, I could go to Fairbanks, off duty, and carry my concealed weapon and still be legal. I don't know if there was ever any prosecutions on any of those. If I went to Fairbanks and, of course in a prisoner pickup, or some investigation, clearly I was in my line of duty so I don't think that was ever an issue." There are a number of officers, when they hire on, who do not become certified until they have had at least a year to 14 months to be certified. There are also a number of police officers in this state that are not required to be certified. SB 214 takes "certified" out. Number 0395 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN believes the bill was triggered by a number of police entities in the state, including the University of Alaska. He indicated they were not allowed to carry off the job because their interpretation of the law was that it was illegal. Number 0393 REPRESENTATIVE MARK HODGINS made a motion to move CSSB 214(STA) from the committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSSB 214(STA) moved from the House State Affairs Standing Committee. CHAIR JAMES was interrupted by a person on teleconference who wanted to testify. Chair James stated that she was not notified SB 214 was being teleconferenced, but said she would accept testimony. Number 0405 DENNY WEATHERS testified from Cordova. First she stated she had no problems with SB 214. The January 14, letter to Senator Mike Miller from Mr. Smith indicated persons indicted for a felony will not be precluded from obtaining a permit. If a person had a felony, most type of felonies, you could not have a firearm. Number 0417 MS. PARKER replied part of that is accurate, you would have to have been convicted of a felony, not charged or indicted. If you are convicted of a felony, there is a prohibition on possession of firearms under federal law and under state law for ten years. MS. WEATHERS asked if that would apply to police officers as well. She question if "persons" means everyday citizens or peace officers. MS. PARKER replied everybody falls under that same rule in regard to conviction of a felony. Number 0430 MS. WEATHERS asked if persons indicted for a felony will not be precluded, were they precluded before. MS. PARKER responded she was not sure. Number 0436 MS. WEATHERS suggested the committee check into that and asked Ms. Parker to explain the wording, "Persons convicted of some misdemeanor, domestic violence crimes, will not be precluded from obtaining a permit." She questioned the meaning of the word "some". Number 0440 MS. PARKER said, "You mean it is applied equally to police officer and other individuals who are not peace officers." MS. WEATHERS indicated police officers that have had domestic violence claims can still work and carry a weapon, other citizens would be precluded. Subsistence hunters, that have to carry a firearm to get their food every day, are precluded from having a firearm. She asked again what "some" meant. "Persons convicted of 'some' misdemeanor domestic violence crimes will not be precluded." She said she would like to see it apply equally. Number 0449 MS. PARKER said it was her understanding that it was applied equally. She stated, "When they are talking about 'some' - a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence definition under federal law is different than under state law, and what was incorporated in SB 141 was the federal law definition. So it didn't include every situation and every misdemeanor crime that's covered under state law, so that's where the change was made." MS. WEATHERS indicated concealed firearms will not be prohibited from domestic violence shelters that are not state funded facilities. She asked if a sign could still be posted. Number 0468 MS. PARKER replied that is correct. This leaves it up to them on whether they want to prohibit firearms within their home or community center, their church, or whatever, rather than the state dictating to them that they must prohibit firearms. It is also up to them on whether they want to post and have no firearms. MS. WEATHERS said the only difference is a state facility would ban. MS. PARKER replied that is correct. MS. WEATHERS asked if a state facility could have a police officer with a firearm. She said it would be silly to make it a total ban. MS. PARKER pointed out there is an exemption that allows the administrator, of the facility, to give written approval if someone wishes to carry a handgun in the facility. Number 0487 MS. WEATHERS noted SB 141 had that exemption, but SB 214 does not. "Concealed firearms will not be prohibited in domestic violence shelters that are not state funded or in a facility of any domestic violence program." She indicated that was confusing and was satisfied with the old version. Number 0500 CHAIR JAMES suggested Ms. Weathers specifically contact Ms. Parker. MS. WEATHERS asked Chair James if police officers were required to get a permit to carry off the job. CHAIR JAMES replied they are required to get a permit at this time. MS. WEATHERS stressed she would like the bill to stay the way it was. CHAIR JAMES stated SB 141 is already law, everything that has been made into law will stay except the one provision where police officers were not included. Number 0528 ERIC WEATHERS testified via teleconference. He said peace officers should have to obtain a permit to carry concealed as everybody else does. Number 0533 CHARLES BRANCH testified via teleconference. He understands this corrects a glitch offered by the Alaska Peace Officers Association. CHAIR JAMES replied that is correct. MR. BRANCH indicated he would like to see it remain that peace officers are not to be above the law, and remain consistent with the general citizenry. Number 0550 CHAIR JAMES noted public testimony was completed and indicated CSSB 214(STA) moved from the State Affairs Standing Committee earlier in the meeting. HB 259 - VOTER LISTS & VOTER REGISTRATION CHAIR JAMES announced the next order of business is HB 259, "An Act relating to the maintenance of voter lists and to the inactivation and cancellation of voter registration; and providing for an effective date," Rules by request of the governor. Number 0558 GAIL FENUMIAI, Election Coordinator, Division of Elections, Office of the Lieutenant Governor, testified before the committee. She said, since implementation of the National Voter Registration Act in 1993, the Division of Elections has not been able to conduct list maintenance on the voter list. She indicated the numbers have been growing, the list has inaccurate addresses and contains names of people who are no longer in the state. She mentioned the National Voter Registration Act does not allow the division to remove voters solely on the purpose for non-voting. MS. FENUMIAI pointed out legislation was passed in 1996 by the Alaska State Legislature in an attempt to bring our state law into compliance with federal law. She said, "When we submitted the law for preclearance, the Department of Justice implied that it had some problematic areas with that as far as the National Voter Registration Act. They felt the law just targeted non-voters as a reason for removing people. This bill [HB 259] will expand the group of people that we will be sending notices to, it's basically no contact, people who have not contacted the division." Number 0573 MS. FENUMIAI said the Division of Elections would like to, in the first year, send notices to all registered voters, both on the active and inactive lists to get clean addresses. This would be beneficial to the division and will save money over time, and as far as printing official election pamphlets, ballots, election supplies, candidates would also save money on mailing lists. She said, "We know that some of the addresses that are provided to the candidates, people aren't there anymore and it costs. Public perception also, those people who are on our list as active voters that don't vote because they are no longer here. Our voter statistics, our voter turnout seems to get lower each year because of those facts." MS. FENUMIAI stated all registered voters would be mailed a confirmation and address card. And the registration records, of all those who returned their cards with updated information, would be updated in our voter registration system and new voter identification cards would be sent to them if needed. She said, "The cards that were going to be returned by postal service with a new address, those folks would then be sent a second notice which is mandated by the federal law to confirm their new address. They would have 45 days to respond to that second notice. If they did not respond to that second notice they would be placed on an inactive list for the next two federal general elections. And if there was no voter contact during that period, the voter then would be deleted. If there was contact, the voter then would become activated and would remain on the roll. Voters responding to the second notice accordingly their records would be updated as well." MS. FENUMIAI said federal law also requires that the postage for this is paid by the state so there is no cost to the voter. She mentioned the majority of the cost in the fiscal note is printing the notices and postage. Number 0607 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Ms. Fenumiai to explain the benefits to the state of Alaska. He said, "There is no question the United States Justice Department, when it comes to voters rights is out in left field. The last ten years, the United States Supreme Court has been pounding them into the ground on (indisc.) they have been giving states. At some point, before we start going out and spending a half million bucks here, and a half million bucks there, somebody should consider the cost of benefit ratio of just taking the Justice Department to court. Because the Supreme Court is not upholding their guidelines that they are putting out. They're mandating who (indisc.) law to use the guidelines that you follow. Now I would go as far as to say the Voters Rights Act has gone beyond the constitutional authority of the federal government to dictate to the states how it conducts elections. Based on considerable amount of experience with the Justice Department, regarding the Voters Rights Act, I think we're just throwing money down the drain here. I do agree that the law we passed, and I think it was in 1995, maybe 1996, I was adamantly opposed to that then and I remain opposed to it. There is an alternative and that's to go to court to defend your rights against a Justice Department which has got a terrible record before the Supreme Court over the last ten years." Number 0626 MS. FENUMIAI deferred to the Department of Law. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY repeated what is the advantage of the state of Alaska in passing HB 259, because the justice department said so is like taking the Fifth Amendment. MS. FENUMIAI believed the benefits to having accurate lists would improve public perception of our voter lists because they are inaccurate. People who are on the active voter lists, are out of the state. and do not vote, count toward the total number of registered voters so voter turn out is lower because they are not here to vote. Money would be saved to the Division of Elections over time in printing less official election pamphlets. Ms. Fenumiai indicated some ballots are returned in the mail. If they are able to remove people from the lists, they would be able to print less ballots, and order less election supplies. MS. FENUMIAI concluded, "The public would be saving, when the list is purchased by private companies, by candidates for campaign purposes, for political purposes. We know that there are bad addresses on there and you would be saving money in printing and postage as well." REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked who besides political candidates use voter registration lists. MS. FENUMIAI replied there are numerous private companies that purchase their lists for a variety of reasons, commercial reasons. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked are they willing to pay to clean up the list. MS. FENUMIAI stated she did not know. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said improving our percentage of voter turn out seems to be a nebulous goal, he believes Alaska has the highest percentage in the nation right now. Representative Vezey asked who are we trying to beat. Number 0655 MS. FENUMIAI answered, "We looked back over the voter turn out over the years and when the list was more manageable, when it was in a more accurate state, voter turn out was high 60s, low 70s. We experienced last general election, a turn out of about 59 percent, which we felt would have increased a fair amount if our lists had, if the inactive and people who are just no longer in the state that cannot vote are off the list then that number would drop and it would increase the voter turn out percentage." REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked what is the benefit to Alaskans if we increase our percentage report of voter turn out. MS. FENUMIAI believed, if people see that there is low voter turn out, it might discourage people from voting. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked why do we need to fund extra money to do this if we are going to save money. MS. FENUMIAI said, "We don't have exact figures on how much money would be saved. We know that over time we would be printing less official election pamphlets, we would be having to order less ballots - I don't have concrete hard numbers on those." REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY indicated he was not convinced of this legislation [HB 259]. Number 0678 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN mentioned his main concern was in purging names from the voters lists, he asked how inactive must a voter be to be removed from the list. MS. FENUMIAI replied the division hopes to send a confirmation notice to everybody that is registered. In subsequent years, the division will send a confirmation notice to individuals whose mail has been returned as undeliverable in the preceding two years, those who have not contacted the division, to inquire about their voters' registration, to request a new voter identification card, have not signed an initiative petition, have not applied to vote by absentee, and also those who have not voted or appeared to have voted in previous two general elections. REPRESENTATIVE IVAN asked what type of notification will be mailed. He indicated his concern is some of his constituents read little or no English. Number 0697 MS. FENUMIAI said it was the Division of Elections intent to send a postage card advising them of the information the division has on the voters' registration and asking them if this information is correct. If not, could they please update the card. It would be written as simply as possible, the city clerks may assist those who have difficulty in reading or writing English. REPRESENTATIVE IVAN referred to page 2, line 16, "...procedures set out in 42 U.S.C. [code]" He asked what do those procedures cover. MS. FENUMIAI replied the procedures cover what is basically in HB 259. She indicated she had copies available and would provide the members copies. Number 0710 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if there were regulations for the election pamphlet. MS. FENUMIAI replied, "...statute." TAPE 98-16, SIDE B Number 0053 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS said there are other savings. He indicated he operates a post office, they have to forward a lot of the information, it creates a lot of extra work and a lot of extra manpower and resources devoted to that. He said, "Any time we can clean the lists up, while it may not impact the people we think it does, it certainly would impact the postal service and those kind of things." He encouraged the committee to go forward with HB 259. Number 0150 KATHLEEN STRASBAUGH, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Department of Law, testified before the committee. She said, "There are several cases in which the constitutionality of the NVRA [National Voter Registration Act] has been upheld with respect to 'state's rights'. And one of the more notable decisions is ACORN [Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now] versus Edgar, the governor of Illinois. It was decided in the Seventh Circuit which looks out for state's rights, so it has sustained several challenges. Also, the state of California is another notable case which lost an effort to try to challenge the constitutionality of the law." MS. STRASBAUGH said, "Secondly, the -- I certainly want to preserve all of my options as the person likely to defend this suit, but it's not -- our present language does raise some questions about whether you're being targeted for non-voting only in the purge process and this way you have to completely lose contact. ...If somebody goes to the polls and their name is not on the list or (indisc.) order, the poll officials could take all down. The question ballot sleeve is also a registration form. Another benefit I might add in that regard, is that this is already the Division of Elections' practice, this enshrines it in statute. It simply isn't clear from the statute that the division already does all these, and somebody phones, things get corrected -- questions, sign a petition. And so somebody would have to fall off the face of the earth literally to get purged because every contact they come into with an election's official should result in an update of the information." Number 0284 CHAIRMAN JAMES asked if the fiscal note came from doing a mass mailing. MS. STRASBAUGH replied yes. If HB 259 does not pass, probably wholesale mailing is about the only thing elections would probably be able to do under the current (indisc. paper noise). It is addressed primarily to the fact that we cannot target now, we have a mess that is almost five years old. Number 0324 CHAIR JAMES said, "The current threat of suit." MS. STRASBAUGH replied, "I think we supplied you the letter. We had our bill pre-cleared by the justice department for the purpose of the Civil rights Act - the voting rights Act, but for the National Voter Registration Act, the justice department said they didn't like our bill as it currently was constituted because it appears to target nonvoters according to them and we are trying to fix the language to be more consistent with the federal law but it has the advantage of citifying practices we already have, making it clear that we have them, that is responding to contact and avoiding -- there are other bones I might have to pick, but this isn't one frankly that I - I think is a good idea." Number 0386 CHAIR JAMES indicated this might give Representative Vezey comfort if HB 259 does not meet the concerns of the justice department. The state is not necessarily conforming to their ideas, we are taking our own. Number 0414 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY mentioned he is not aware of any cases that have gone before the supreme court in the past ten years where the policies of the justice department have been upheld. He said, "Not the law, I'm saying the policies -- the justice department takes the law and says this is the way we're going to enforce it. On the same line I'm not aware of any cases that have gone through any courts that have to do with state's rights to use some reasonable standard for purging of nonactive voters. I believe most laws have gone in have had to do with registering voters and not purging voting lists." MS. STRASBAUGH said, "The Illinois case was that practices of the state of Illinois were challenged in many particulars including the purge procedure. The justice department doesn't appear to have been losing this type of case. The type of case that Representative Vezey is referring to is some other extreme positions taken in two or three cases in the south by the justice department for redistricting in which they continued to maximize representation, even after having been instructed by congress and the courts not to... I don't think this falls into the same category as the redistricting case." REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he believes she said there have not been any cases before the supreme court involving voter registration, not involving purging voters. Number 0550 MS. STRASBAUGH replied no, she did not mean to represent that there has been a supreme court challenge. She believes, in the cases she mentioned, one case covered comprehensive practices, not just the provision of voter registration. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said, "I would correct one comment you made, that in 1991 the justice department was telling states to maximize minority representation. The justice department was, the supreme court came back the early 1990s and says no way, Jose." CHAIR JAMES asked for a motion to move HB 259 out of committee. Number 0588 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS made a motion to move HB 259 out of committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY objected. Number 0605 CHAIR JAMES requested a roll call vote. Representatives Dyson, Hodgins, Ivan and Chair James voted in support of moving HB 259 from committee. Representative Vezey voted against it. Therefore HB 259 moved from the House State Affairs Standing Committee. CHAIR JAMES called for an at ease and turned the House State Affairs Standing Committee meeting over to Vice Chairman Ivan. HJR 50 - PERMANENT FUND PUBLIC CORPORATION Number 0600 VICE CHAIRMAN IVAN announced the next order of business is HJR 50, Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to a public corporation established to manage the permanent fund, sponsored by Representative James. Number 0682 PATRICK LOUNSBURY, Legislative Secretary to Representative James testified on behalf of Representative James, sponsor of HJR 50. He said, "Before you again is HB 81 and HJR 50 relating to the board members of the permanent fund and how it related to their removal for cause or serving at the pleasure of the governor." He said, "We have been over this extensively and have been working with the Department of Law to ensure that this is a proper piece of legislation. Something I just received yesterday was a dismissal letter from the governor to a particular board member and I believe that it further illustrates the point how politics, be them as they may, really should be taken out to the extent they can be from this process. He read a line in the letter, 'I must be confident that the existing board will carry out its statutory duties consistent with my philosophy of government. As for the existing board, I am not confident that it will act in a manner consistent with my philosophy.' Stating philosophy of government not philosophy of financial responsibility or best interests of the State of Alaska, and I would just like to submit that into the record." MR. LOUNSBURY continued. "I was talking with the Department of Law to see if we could get around an amendment to the constitution. I believe that the founding fathers asserted that they would like to have a strong governor and I agree with that. And any time we mess with the constitution we should really take care. And we tried to come up with some language but I believe it would just still bring us back to point A, serving at the pleasure of the governor and will put us in the same position we are now where any governor that would come in could wipe out the board of the permanent fund. Which, it being one of our best assets, I don't believe it to be a prudent course. And, so what were doing here is for continuity for the board." MR. LOUNSBURY stated, "Another concern was removal for cause, how is that defined, what's the case log, could that just be a whole can of worms. We believe that the bill, on page 3 where it states each board member has a fiduciary duty to the fund, and each member shall perform official actions, so in accordance to that duty, it covers the cause measure where if a member would break that fiduciary responsibility, that could be cause and then could be removed by the governor." MR. LOUNSBURY concluded HJR 50 will allow the process a little more accountability, the board members would also be subject to confirmation of the legislature which is something that is not done at the moment. VICE CHAIRMAN IVAN asked for an at ease to obtain a quorum. TAPE 98-17, SIDE A Number 0001 HB 81 - PERMANENT FUND BOARD MEMBERS & STAFF VICE CHAIRMAN IVAN called the meeting back to order in approximately four minutes. He indicated the next order of business is HB 81, "An Act relating to the members of the board and staff of the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation," sponsored by Representative James. Number 0005 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS made a motion to move HB 81 from committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note. There being no objections, HB 81 moved from the House State Affairs Standing Committee. HJR 50 - PERMANENT FUND PUBLIC CORPORATION Number 0010 VICE CHAIRMAN IVAN stated the next order of business is HJR 50, Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to a public corporation established to manage the permanent fund, sponsored by Representative James. Number 0020 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS made a motion to move HJR 50 with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note. Hearing no objection, HJR 50 passed out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee. SB 105 - ETHICS/LOBBYING/CAMPAIGN FINANCE Number 0027 VICE CHAIRMAN IVAN said the next order of business is CSSB 105(FIN) amended, "An Act relating to legislative and executive branch ethics; relating to campaign finances for candidates for state office; relating to the conduct and regulation of lobbyists with respect to public officials; relating to the filing of disclosures by certain state employees and officials; making a conforming amendment to the definition of 'public official' for employment security statutes; and providing for an effective date," Rules by request of the Legislative Ethics Committee. Number 0049 BEN BROWN, Legislative Administrative Assistant to Senator Kelly, sponsor of SB 105, testified before the committee. He said SB 105 is a comprehensive piece of legislation, executive branch ethics, and to a lesser extent campaign finance reform. He reminded the members a brief overview was provided to them last week. REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ asked what version was being addressed. MR. BROWN replied LS0074\K.a. [0-LS0074\K amended by finance]. VICE CHAIRMAN IVAN noted for the record, Representatives Berkowitz and Elton were present. MR. BROWN referred to the first section of SB 105. He said it is an expansion of the ban on fund-raising during legislative sessions. The campaign finance law was passed, a couple years ago, in response to a voter initiative. An oversight on the part of Mike Frank continued to allow the governor and lieutenant governor to raise money during legislative sessions, legislators cannot do that anymore. He indicated the easiest way to solve that problem, in Title 15.13 the Campaign Finance Act, is to create a definition of state office that includes the governor, lieutenant governor, and all legislators. If there was an elected attorney general - it would probably include anyone who was running as a delegate to a constitutional convention. MR. BROWN stressed all of those offices are state offices. He believes the intent was to prevent money from being raised, for their offices, while the legislature was in session. SB 105 creates a definition of state office, it includes the governor and lieutenant governor, and it will not allow anyone to give money to those persons during the session or to anyone who has declared candidacy for those positions. It will not allow persons who are declared candidates to receive money. He said, "The way campaign finance is written, we ban the giving and we ban the taking." Number 0127 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked, "Are we going to be discussing the sections of the bill as we go through them, or are we going to let this all wash over us and then come back and address it." VICE CHAIRMAN IVAN indicated SB 105 would not move out of committee today. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said, "It seems to me what you're trying to do here is there's someone in the other body, he's running for governor and is unable to raise funds at this point in his campaign. And one of the options is to prohibit the governor from raising funds at the same time, ignoring that there's someone else whose not in the legislature or a sitting governor. But one of the options is just to say that anyone whose sitting in the legislature can raise funds for any other office. There is also, the Senate majority leader is running for a federal office and there is no prohibition against him raising funds. So, the fix that you are proposing here seems narrowly targeted to an individual race rather than to the (indisc.) best interests of campaign reform." MR. BROWN responded a candidate, or individual, who has filed with the commission the documents necessary to permit that individual to incur election rated expenses would include Mr. Lindauer. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said but it would not include Mr. Duncan [Senator]. MR. BROWN replied, "Not if he is running for congress, no. Or if he's running for school board it would not, state office is state office and if it's the wisdom of the legislature to ban fund- raising for any office, a dogcatcher up to - if we ever elected a secretary general to the U.N. [United Nations], we could do that. I think the approach in Title 15 is to create a category of state offices and state offices are those things that the legislature -- well those who hold state office are going to be most interested in legislative activity and therefore would have the greatest conflict of interest in raising money during a legislative session. It's entirely possible to argue that the same could be true for people with having to leave the level of state office and bump up to the congressional level. That's not the way campaign finance reform was written and that's not the way this bill is written. But to say that it does this - this (indisc.) is narrowly targeted toward a specific current candidate for governor, is that you could just as easily say that Mike Frank was writing special interest legislation when he wrote the voter passed initiative for the current sitting governor? You could say that his goal was to allow the current governor to raise funds during this session. I don't think that's the case any more than I think it's the case this is targeted toward a specific candidate in the current race who is a member of the legislature. I don't know if there is a lot of value in speculating about that, the ban is going to be pretty rigorous in terms of banning persons who have filed their documents to raise money. (Indisc.) ...Mr. Lindauer as well. If that bans Joe Q. Public, it just shuts down fund-raising during session." Number 0182 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated the current situation provides great hypothetical. You have a wealthy individual who does not need to raise money, you also have a sitting member of the legislature who is unable to raise money in the race for governor. You have a sitting governor who needs to compete either against a wealthy individual, in which case it will be fair for the governor to be allowed to raise money. He said, "It seems the one who is suffering an inequity here is Mr. Taylor [Senator], and now he'll be surprised to hear me advocating on his behalf, but it seems the fair solution, and the best solution here is to say, if you're running for statewide office, while you're holding a legislative seat, you raise funds for that office." MR. BROWN responded that is not the way SB 105 is written. He did not believe it was best to put an (indisc.) definition in Title 15.13 that takes too much into account - the circumstances of the current governor's race - this was not a contention at that time. He noted SB 105 passed the Senate 17 to 2. MR. BROWN said if we expand the definition of state office to include our congressional delegation, that's a policy call, but at the current time it's not. Number 0218 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Mr. Brown to explain what the consensus of creating SB 105, why would this make democracy in Alaska better. MR. BROWN responded SB 105 is not a main issue of change for the campaign finance law, it is a targeted fix to language that was put into the campaign finance law by the legislature in response to a voter initiative. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated this has been law since 1974. MR. BROWN replied not the ban during session, fund-raising giving and taking. It was his understanding that this provision was inserted during the campaign finance reform. Number 0238 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY noted it dates back to the 1976 campaign finance laws. Legislators have not been able to collect funds during legislative sessions. MR. BROWN replied if they were running for governor they could. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said, "I know we had attorney general rulings back as recently as 1994 that that was not true. I think it applied before then. The biggest problem I have here, and I don't think this would withstand (indisc.) court for five seconds, you're telling challengers, people who are not in public office that they can't campaign when the legislature is sitting. That gives the power, that is the entities that are in power, the ability to have complete control over when we have campaigns. That you really think the Supreme Court of the State of Alaska, much less the Supreme Court of the United States, is going to uphold that. Could you imagine the legislature being faced with an onslaught of unpopular opposition to staying in session year-round, it could happen." MR. BROWN stated that has been considered, the committee would be reviewing an amendment in the coming weeks. The best way to withstand constitutional challenges for a campaign fund-raising ban is to make it apply to people equally and to make it apply for a reasonable amount of time. A period, right before an election, when it's most necessary that the fund-raising activity is protected by free speech - mandates be allowed. Number 0261 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked how do you keep from interfering with first amendment rights under the State of Alaska Constitution and the federal constitution by telling them they cannot campaign. MR. BROWN responded, "It's not campaigning, they're allowed to campaign, they're just not allowed to raise money and accept donations. Now the two are obviously very closely aligned." REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said, "They are independently wealthy, they have their own funds, they can campaign, but if they are at poverty level (indisc.)." MR. BROWN interjected, "Or with whatever they raise between the first of January and the beginning of the session." Number 0273 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said, "We have a clever legislature, they just stay in session all the time to keep opponents from coming into the system." MR. BROWN stated he could not answer that question. He said, "... We've strengthened our campaign finance laws in Alaska. We do a lot of things that limit people's ability to express themselves by giving money. We've allowed them to give less money, we allow lobbyists to give money only to persons in whose district they reside. These are things that may be challenged, they may go to the courts, so I can't resolve all those issues right here. I can simply speak for the way the bill is currently written and some of the rationale behind it. And I apologize if that's not adequate." Number 0284 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said, "I just think we're being extremely short sighted here, that if we want to create parody, then we need to make the door bigger rather than smaller. What comes in mind is the way we modified the requirements for definition of political party last year. We did not in any way shrink the opportunities to be a political party, we created another avenue, we expanded. ... I draw the line when we start telling challengers, people who are trying get into office for the first time, or after being out of office, that they can't campaign. ... It's impossible to separate money from the ability to communicate. So I have some serious problems." Number 0305 REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON said, "If I understand this section, the philosophical under (indisc.) are you don't want to make a sitting legislature happy by giving them money while they have their hands on the reigns of state government. ... Is that a fair statement of why you want to prohibit the exchange of money during the legislative session." MR. BROWN responded, "Since that preexisted, and this is simply an attempt to whom that applies, I can't necessarily embrace that wholeheartedly. I think that sounds pretty ballpark, that's what we're all thinking here." REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said, if that's the case, why is it okay to give money for a federal race. Another example would be, since the Municipality of Anchorage has changed their city elections to April, why not include any elective office. He said, "You can make a person -- I'm not saying that Representative Berkowitz is ever going to run for mayor, or that Representative Dyson is ever going to run for mayor, but you could make them happy I'm sure if they weren't covered in this and they had the ability to raise money for an expensive mayoral race in Anchorage. Why are you just doing it to elected state offices?" MR. BROWN replied our elections are in November, our sessions are at the beginning of the year. A possible amendment will be brought forward to have this ban not apply, and the run up to an election. If the Municipality of Anchorage is going to have their elections in April, it is not going to be possible for the local races - contacts there to shut down fund-raising. Number 0333 MR. BROWN said a line was drawn, state offices is where it was drawn around. It is everything above municipal and below congressional. He continued, "I also believe - and obviously for the lower level offices, the local offices, state law can just govern how they're run, how money is raised, that sort of thing. But for the congressional offices, I think we get into some federal issues, and it's something I haven't looked at. ... It's not something that has been proposed in a concrete way. So I've had to look at what the ramifications would be of expanding this ban to that higher level. I think it might be legally hard to defend, and so it just hasn't been looked at. It's certainly a policy call like I said. If it's a good idea to ban it for state offices during the session, then maybe it's a good idea to ban it for everyone. It's not the way it's currently written, it's something that could be put into the bill but then again what that does, it probably makes a whole host of people who don't like it the way it's currently written for state office like it even less for the municipal office and congressional office." Number 0349 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said if you apply the same logic, then clearly this body does have the ability to control the conduct of some of the municipal elections. He said, "We do it with APOC [Alaska Public Offices Commission], we do it in a lot of other ways. If we apply that same logic, it would be easy to say we ought to ban fund-raising by legislators for municipal offices also because, especially since Anchorage is doing it in April. I guess that gets back to the point that I think Representative Berkowitz was making and that is you have two ways of solving this situation. One of the ways is to apply it equally across the board to everybody for any office that is not necessarily a legislative office. Or the other is to say, 'No, a legislator can't raise money during the session for a run for office or reelection of a legislator.' You can either open it up a little bit or you can close the door more fully than you're trying to close the door here." Number 0366 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS said if you were really going to do a level playing field you would put a moratorium on press announcements for incumbents. He said, "There's a lot of power in that, that does not cost, that somebody challenging for office does not have the opportunity for. That in itself is a tremendous, tremendous, tool, not that it's ever been used that way or ever would [laughter]. But there is a possibility of being able to make a press conference or a speech such as this [laughter], to come forward." REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS continued. "As far as the municipal elections in Anchorage, I don't think it does government any good to preclude somebody from the opportunity of running for an office and I would hate to see Representative Berkowitz not being able to run for borough assembly in Anchorage simply because he was a legislator of even worse, he had to resign being a legislator in order to run for another office. And I don't think that does government any good, I think what we're trying to do is get as many people into the fray to run for office with as level a playing field as possible. I don't know how we're going to approach the power of the incumbency." Number 0388 VICE CHAIRMAN IVAN said this was the most exciting subject that was discussed in committee [laughter]. He mentioned people were waiting on teleconference. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said, "Mr. Brown, you are a delight, and I would appreciate it if you city boys in general, and you particularly would speak a little s-l-o-w-e-r so that those of us, with an old central processing chip could do better keeping up." [Laughter]. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said, "I guess we're not going to hear from the governor's office on this, but does anybody really think the governor cares if we allow him to collect money under a campaign law or not." MR. BROWN replied he did not know. He indicated the chairwoman of the Democratic party of Alaska has expressed her concerns about whether or not the law is changed in that regard. VICE CHAIRMAN IVAN opened the meeting up to public testimony. Number 0423 GARY BADER, citizen and Chairman of the State Personnel Board testified via teleconference from Anchorage, his comments would pertain to the executive branch ethics. He said, "We, the board members, are still unclear as to why such sweeping legislation is required. Quite frankly we at a loss as to what you're trying to fix, again that pertains to executive branch ethics. My second point is we're a citizen board, and we work approximately 20 days a year on behalf of the state and that's not a problem to us. ... We believe that with passage of the bill [SB 105] as it's structured, if we could end up working 40 to 50 days a year. We didn't buy into that, that doesn't mean we won't do it, but we didn't buy into that." MR. BADER continued. "I would like you to consider some level of compensation for this citizen board to the extent that we will end up working that amount of time and I'd suggest something in the area of $150 a day per board member." MR. BADER said, "The second thing I'd like to request if the legislation progress, is an independent council to the board. Currently we are required to use attorneys for a board council. It comes from the AG's office [Office of the Attorney General]. Although I understand there is not a legal conflict of interest, there is certainly perceived public conflict of interest when, in fact, the state is party to most of our business." MR. BADER concluded, "The last thing I'd like you to consider is to include ... the opportunity for the board to either hear the complaints for the appeals or to appoint a hearing officer. Currently we only have the opportunity to appoint a hearing officer. And quite frankly we believe that it would be a much better business and perhaps less costly if we have the option to do either. I presume you have my letter which I wrote to the Senate committee last year, so I'll conclude my comments with those." Number 0464 MR. BROWN replied they were not any where near that section. He indicated he has been working with Neil Slotnick, Department of Law, some of his concerns would be addressed. He said, "We will be happy to look at things to make sure that this doesn't create an unworkable situation for you and does what it's intended, which is to improve the executive branch ethics and makes you as an independent authority as a personnel board a good overseer of executive branch ethics." SUZIE BARNETT, Professional Assistant to the Legislative Ethics Committee, Anchorage, said she was available to answer questions concerning Amendment 2460. JOE DONAHUE, member of the Legislative Ethics Committee, Kenai, said he would give any of the Ethics Committee's perspective on those issues that affect the Ethics Committee's operation. He indicated the Ethics Committee does not have any input on the executive branch ethics portion or on the campaign reform portion. Number 0502 MIKE MCMULLEN, Manager, Division of Personnel, Department of Administration said he was present as staff to the division, which houses the personnel board. He said our discussion would be (indisc.) when we get those sections in the Executive Branch Ethics Act. Number 0506 STEVEN (NEIL) SLOTNICK, Assistant Attorney General, Commercial Section, Department of Law came before the committee, said he was also available to testify on the executive branch portion. REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS referred to page 5, line 8. He said it seems to be in conflict with line 21. While that is an existing law he thought Mr. Brown might offer an amendment. MR. BROWN replied line 8 is to office accounts for legislators, they are allowed $5 thousand per year in their term. The reference on line 21 is for municipal office accounts. Campaign finance law allows candidates for municipal office to dispose of unused campaign assets up to $5 thousand for their whole term of office. The assumption is you do not need as much money to be a municipal office holder as you do to be a state office holder. Number 0523 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS said, "I find that it says anything under this paragraph, and I'm not sure if that means all the things in Section 10, or if it just means Section (indisc.), that's what I'm referring to." MR. BROWN replied it is suppose to refer to ten. Number 0528 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said, "Going back to Section 1, ...You look at a candidate or individual who has filed, now someone who hasn't filed can accept all kinds of contributions and later transfer those funds in, is that fair to say." MR. BROWN replied, "That is a loophole that I don't know how we can ever go about closing. I guess we could try to put a definition into statute of someone who is considering filing and ban that person's behavior, I think that's obviously ridiculous. If someone wants to raise money, and say it's a gift, and just go around saying 'I'm your friend give me money,' and then after that money has been received by that person decides to file a letter of intent." Number 0537 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ interjected, "Actually it would seem to me it's better to do that from a fund-raising point of view. You don't file, you go around -- I believe you can get $10 thousand tax-free gifts from all kinds of people and then after you accumulate a huge war chest you can say, 'Now I'm going to take all of my personal money, which is a vast sum at this point, and I'm going to declare for election." MR. BROWN replied he did not know how to solve that problem. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said, "I do know how to solve that problem. And part of the problem is, is when you put together a laundry list like this, it's a huge document - a huge laundry list of how to behave - people are going to find loopholes like this. The way to preclude people from using laundry lists like this is to make a very simple ethical rule because there is no way we're going to compel ethical behavior from people who are intent on looking for loopholes. You look at something like the Judicial Code of Ethics, which is one or two pages long, and it seems for the most part to work, and it's not a laundry list by any stretch of the imagination. But, what it says is basically is you've got to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Now, collecting $10 thousand checks from your buddies, before you declare for office, there is an appearance impropriety to it. It sort of violates the spirit of law but it's not against the letter of the law. Now we do something simple like that, as opposed to a laundry list, then I think we've gone some place in terms of establishing ethics. If it works for the judicial branch, I think it can work for other branches as well." Number 0556 MR. BROWN replied that it is a policy call. He said, "I don't know that the public will be comfortable with legislation that repeals vast portions of AS 24.60 and replaced them with gentle, yet far- reaching language that said everyone is going to behave well." He said Representative Finkelstein and Senator Collins, when they worked on the ethics law, unavoidably steered in the direction of listing things, being specific, and enumerating what could be done and what could not be done because the larger general honorable approach had not worked in the past or was perceived as not having worked in the past. MR. BROWN said, "I think when you look at the body of persons who are covered under judicial ethics, those persons for the most part have gone through a special set of educational regors to get to where they are and hopefully in the process of that have learned something about having higher standards than, not to say everyone in the executive and legislative branches does not have, but those persons are not required to have special education to have gotten there in the first place. Lord knows it's far beyond me assessing how judicial ethics work in addition to the few branches of government we've already started looking at. So, I can only go so far that direction without becoming a little alarmed." REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said, "My comment to that would be, maybe if people expected higher ethics in the legislative branch they'd get it." Number 0573 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY referred to the appearance of impropriety. He said, "I would beg to differ because there would be no appearance because the only person you have to report against, up to $10 thousand is to the IRS [Internal Revenue Service], and they're prohibited by law from disclosing that information. This is what we're getting down to is disclosure and when you drive people out of the system, which is we've done a good job of that now. The majority of campaign spending in this country today I would submit it done out of the system and is not disclosed to the public. We have destroyed through all our legislation the one legitimate purpose of campaign finance reform and that's the public's right to know." VICE CHAIRMAN IVAN indicated the meeting would adjourn in five minutes. MR. BROWN asked if the meeting could run until 10:00. VICE CHAIRMAN IVAN told Mr. Brown to proceed. Number 0595 MR. BROWN said Sections 3 and 4 deals with disposal of unused assets after a campaign. When Campaign Finance Reform was passed by the legislature, a number of options were given to candidates for what to do with the extra money they had in their accounts, and they have to do with the 90 days of the elections ending. He said, "You can't just keep your account open now, year after year, ... like you use to be able to." MR. BROWN said, "One of the options of creating an office account, thereby using some of the funds raised for your candidacy for office related expenses during your term of office. Senator Donley inserted language to create office account reserves and that is what you see in Sections 3 and 4 of the bill [SB 105]. And I don't know if there is anything particularly controversial about this. There is an amendment that has already been distributed to you that solves a problem in terms of rollover of assets that were kept in an office account reserve and then not put into an office account and that amendment will be taken up when we get to amendments next week. And, all of you should have a copy of that on the committee." VICE CHAIRMAN IVAN asked how much is a proposed reserve amount (indisc. - coughing) account. Number 0610 MR. BROWN replied the amendment won't change the account. The amount is proposed is $5 thousand for each year of your term of office if you are a state office holder. He said, "Except it's more for the governor and lieutenant governor. So, it's $50 thousand, now that's for future campaigns, and its legislative accounts only. Excuse me, it's not for the governor and lieutenant governor. So, it's $5 thousand for each year for a representative that would be $10 thousand and it would be $20 thousand for a senator. And it would be $5 thousand only for a municipal office holder regardless of the length of that office of that term. As I said, there is an amendment that deals with this that we can look at next week." Number 0617 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said, "So I can take $5 thousand if I get that lucky and put that in my next campaign." MR. BROWN replied yes you can. You are allowed to transfer money to your next campaign, that is one option. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked, "Am I also precluded from taking say a second $5 thousand and putting that in an office account." MR. BROWN replied, "No, if you have $10 thousand you can do both." REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said, "So I can squirrel away a good chunk of money in office accounts." Number 0622 MR. BROWN replied, "Yes, but if you don't spend the money on office account expenses. Under the amendment that we're going to look at next week, ... you'll have to donate that money. You will not be able to roll it back over into your campaign at the end of the term of office. That's the problem that exists in the current office account reserve language." REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated, "But I could for example use the power of the incumbency to send out a lot of mailers." MR. BROWN replied certainly. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said, "And the thin line between...." MR. BROWN inerjected, "You can use your legislative office account for that. ..." REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ jokingly replied, "It never occured to me, but thank you for pointing that out." Number 0631 MR. BROWN said Section 5 creates a definition of state office in the campaign finance statutes that include governor, lieutenant governor, and legislator, or similar state office. He said, "And presumably that is meant to include delegates for constitutional conventions, if we ever have an election to elect those. And, if we ever elect any of our other offices if we change the law so that we elect our attorney general that would certainly, I would think be a state office. Although the legislation that effected that change would need to make sure that it did it here in Title 15. So that's a pretty simple section." Number 0639 MR. BROWN said Section 6 does not look simple but it really is. He indicated it is a technical amendment, recommended by the drafter, and it changes the employment security statutes to make sure that persons who are not eligible for unemployment insurance remain ineligible. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER said, "It's the scary ones." MR. BROWN agreed they are the scariest ones. He said, "We'd definitely have to rely on the advice of legal counsel." MR. BROWN said Section 7 are the Legislative Ethics provisions of the bill. Number 0649 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said, "... I'm looking at Section 6, and did we not amend Section 6 in 1997, Alaska Statute 23.25.26. Is this something totally new? They changed the English language at some point in the history of the state legislature and we're going through and putting 'thats,' and 'whiches,' and 'what nots' ... I'm really puzzled by what's happened to the English language, that the people apparently a number of years ago didn't know how to use it an now we're correcting it." MR. BROWN said the changes from "which" to "that" are stylistic. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he thought this chapter was amended in 1997. MR. BROWN replied, "I'm unaware that it had been done. The substance of component of the chapter starts on line 11, on page 7 though. And it numerates a specific number of persons who work in the executive branch to make sure that those persons are not going to become eligible for unemployment insurance because we're changing the executive branch ethics law. That's not the intent here, and so it's to make sure that we don't expand to the pool of eligibility for unemployment benefits ..." VICE CHAIRMAN IVAN asked for a brief summary of Section 6. Number 0668 MR. BROWN said Section 6 specifically enumerates the number of higher level persons who work in the executive branch, in a way that is necessary to prevent them from becoming eligible for unemployment insurance upon the cessation of employment in these positions. He concluded, "And, which is how it currently works but because we're changing reference to these persons in [Alaska Statute] 39.50 and 39.52 we have to make a conforming change here, in 23.20." REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ indicated Mr. Slotnick has a concern with this section. MR. SLOTNICK replied he is not familiar with this section at all. He said, "I don't work in employment security, I believe there is someone in law who can look into this and I can get back to you on that." MR. BROWN said that he will try to provide something in writing. Number 0684 MR. BROWN referred to Section 7. He said, "This is where Joe [Donahue] and Suzie [Barnett] may decide they might want to chime in and answer questions if you have them. This enables the Legislative Ethics Committee to issue subpoenas without the concurrence of a presiding officer. I believe it was an oversight in the ethics bill as it was passed by the legislature several years ago, that this independent subpoenaing power was not given to the committee. Other permanent interim committees of the legislature, Legislative Council and Legislative Budget and Audit have that power. The problem that would exist in having to get the concurrence of the senate president or the speaker of the house for the issuance of a subpoena by the ethics committee is what if they were the target of the investigation or what if one of their staff were, or one of their majority were for that matter. It's just not appropriate to have to have that signing off by the president or the speaker and so this section of the bill will take care of that and enable the ethics committee to subpoena people independently as the Leg. [Legislative] Council can." Number 0696 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY noted there is a major difference between Leg. [Legislative] Council and Legislative Budget and Audit. Those are elected officials, we are talking here about appointed officials. MR. BROWN replied, "It's actually a highbred on the ethics committee of course, Representative Vezey." REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said, "There are some minority. I'm not sure that I see apples and oranges comparison there." TAPE 98-17, SIDE B Number 0001 MR. DONAHUE said, " ...power to subpoena witnesses. This is really just a clerical or technical change so that there aren't too inconsistent sections of the law. And this will just make [AS] 24.25 consistent with [AS] 24.60." Number 0012 MR. BROWN said, "Section 8 bans out the lobbying. It's been a very contentious issue in the legislature for a number of years. It is what prevented this bill from moving through House Finance, I believe, in the last legislature when it was SB 141. And it got all the way over to the House and it got solved there. This was not put in by the ethics committee, the members of the ethics committee I don't believe felt comfortable banning spousal lobbying, they did want a disclosure requirement in there, but the Senate decided to put a ban in and so therefore, it's now in the bill. It will prevent persons who are married to legislators, who are engaged in a relationship that resembles marriage with a legislator from being lobbyists." Number 0032 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Mr. Brown to define conjugal. MR. BROWN replied, "Persons cohabiting with, I don't know if we have a definition of conjugal in statute, but I assume it would mean having physical relations similar to marital relations... I think we might have to rely on Webster, if you will. It's a policy call right now, whether or not it would be fair to ban only spouses who were married in the eyes of the state and God and not ban law being for those who are in a similar relationship. So I think the policy call here is to try to treat married couples and unmarried couples that are couples equally. If that requires defining conjugal statutorily, it's something we can certainly do." Number 0061 MR. BROWN referred to an amendment that was distributed last week. He said, "The oversight here is we ban spousal lobbying, we have a disclosure requirement for lobbying by spouses, or spousal equivalent of staff, but if this ban on spousal lobbying is struck down, we'll have an inconsistency in the law. It will be perfectly all right for legislator's spouses to lobby, the legislative staff will have to disclose it and the legislator's spouses won't even have to disclose it. So the contingency language will provide for disclosure by legislative spouse lobbyists if the outright ban is struck down. And there's a good chance that it might be, I guess it's the conventional legal wisdom on that..." Number 0082 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked what is the (indisc.) against spousal lobbying. MR. BROWN indicated Senator Phillips is the one who offered the amendments. He said, "Basically I can kind of guess where the argument is coming from, it's that if you're making policy, and your spouse, or spousal equivalent, is receiving money to influence public policy, it's an appearance of impropriety of the highest order I guess is what people think. They're not trusting persons in these relationships to leave the office at the office when they go home I guess." REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY made an observation, he has not seen any sign that the public sees this as a problem. Number 0105 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said, "I can't let a comment pass, Ben [Mr. Brown] - It's probably illegal but nobody may challenge it. That kind of logic, I think kind of diminishes the efforts that we do. I guess I'm a little bit concerned by the fact that you're kind of giving testimony that this probably isn't legal but let's go ahead and do it anyway." MR. BROWN said, "I didn't mean to diminish the gravity or the importance of the legislation before us. It's a difficulty policy call to attempt to ban spousal lobbying and many red flags have been raised about its potential unconstitutionality. Therefore, the amendment that was distributed to you last week attempts to address that problem by putting in contingency language so that the bill does put in a disclosure requirement if the outright ban has been struck down. I didn't mean to sound flippant or irreverent about it, and I apologize if I did. It's an important issue, it's a difficult policy call to make and the House may one again find itself disagreeing with the wisdom of the Senate on it. And, if the House doesn't find that persons covered by the bill may decide that they find themselves uncomfortable with having to live with the provisions of the law." Number 0135 VICE CHAIRMAN IVAN stated Section 8 will be brought up at the next hearing. REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS indicated he was going to make a motion to remove Section 8, but it could be discussed further. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected for the purpose of keeping it on the table and giving the committee a good stopping point. ADJOURNMENT Number 0150 VICE CHAIRMAN IVAN adjourned the House State Affairs Standing Committee at 9:56 a.m.

Document Name Date/Time Subjects