Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/18/1995 10:05 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 18, 1995
10:05 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jeannette James, Chair
Representative Joe Green
Representative Ivan
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Caren Robinson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chair
Representative Ed Willis
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HB 130: "An Act relating to agency review of public comment on
the adoption, amendment, and repeal of regulations;
relating to the examination of proposed regulations,
amendments of regulations, and orders repealing
regulations by the Administrative Regulation Review
Committee and the Department of Law; relating
to the submission to, and acceptance by, the
lieutenant governor of proposed regulations,
amendments of regulations, and orders repealing
regulations; and requiring agencies to make certain
determinations before adopting regulations, amendments
of regulations, or orders repealing regulations."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HB 163: "An Act requiring an agency to provide compliance cost
estimates for proposed regulations, amendments, and
repeals of regulations under certain circumstances."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
*HB 201: "An Act relating to prisoner litigation,
post-conviction relief, sentence appeals, amending
Alaska Administrative Rule 10, Alaska Rules of
Appellate Procedure 204, 208, 209, 215, 521, 603, and
604, and Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure 11, 33,
35, and 35.1; and providing for an effective date."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
*HB 234: "An Act relating to administrative adjudication under
the Administrative Procedure Act."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
*HB 122: "An Act authorizing payment of a portion of the motor
fuel tax on boats and watercraft as refunds to
municipalities; and providing for an effective date."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
*HB 226: "An Act permitting the provision of different
retirement and health benefits to employees based on
marital status."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
*HB 227: "An Act clarifying a statute relating to persons who
may legally marry; and providing for an effective
date."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
*HB 10: "An Act relating to payment for emergency services
responding to certain motor vehicle accidents."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
(* First public hearing)
WITNESS REGISTER
BRUCE CAMPBELL, Administrative Assistant
Representative Pete Kelly
State Capitol, Room 513
Juneau, AK 99891
Telephone: 465-2327
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 130
DEBORAH BEHR, Regulation Attorney
Alaska Department of Law
600 Court Building
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: 465-3600
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 130 and HB 163
ROD MOURANT, Administrative Assistant
Representative Pete Kott
Capitol Building, Room 432
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: 465-3777
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 163
LAURIE OTTO, Deputy Attorney General
Criminal Division
Alaska Department of Law
717 Court Building
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: 465-3428
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 201
TERESA WILLIAMS, Assistant Attorney General
1031 W. 4th Suite 200
Anchorage, AK 99501
Telephone: 269-5100
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 234
REPRESENTATIVE CARL MOSES
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 204
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: 465-3764
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsored HB 122
WILLIAM HUNTER, Bethel City Manager
Box 388
Bethel, AK 99559
Telephone: 543-2087
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 122
PAUL DICK, Juneau Operations Officer
Income and Excise Audit Division
Alaska Department of Revenue
11th Floor, State Office Building
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: 465-3691
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on amendments to HB 122
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KELLY
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 513
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: 465-2327
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsored HB 226
RANDALL BURNS, Executive Director
Alaska Civil Liberties Union
P.O. Box 201844
Anchorage, AK 99520
Telephone: Not Available
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 226 and HB 227
MIKE HUMPHREY, Statewide Director of Benefits
University of Alaska Statewide System
212 Butrovich Building
University of Alaska
Fairbanks, AK 99709
Telephone: 474-7894
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 226
PAUL EAGLIN, Associate General Council
University of Alaska Statewide System
202 Butrovich Building
University of Alaska
Fairbanks, AK 99775-5160
Telephone: 474-7259
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 226
MARK TUMEO
1324 Summit Drive
Fairbanks, AK 99712
Telephone: 457-6818
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported amendment to HB 226
JENNINE WILLIAMSON
2454 Killarney
Fairbanks, AK 99709
Telephone: 479-8242
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported amendment to HB 226
SANDRA BOATWRIGHT
3118 Chinook
Fairbanks, AK 99709
Telephone: 479-7835
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported amendment to HB 226
NANCY WINFORD
P.O. Box 80202
Fairbanks, AK 99709
Telephone: 479-7835
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported amendment to HB 226
CINDY BOESSER
875 Basin Road
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: 789-1445
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 226 and 227
SUE HARGIS, Chair
Southeast Alaska Gay and Lesbian Alliance
P.O. Box 21542
Juneau, AK 99802
Telephone: 586-2410
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 226 and 227
CAROL ANDERSON
P.O. Box 22493
Juneau, AK 99802
Telephone: None
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 226 and 227
TALMADGE BAILEY
P.O. Box 34542
Juneau, AK 99803
Telephone: 790-2519
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 226 and 227
DANIEL COLLISON Vice President
Southeast Alaska Gay and Lesbian Alliance
P.O. Box 2146
Juneau, AK 99802
Telephone: 789-5001
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 227
ROBERT STALNAKER, Director
Division of Retirement and Benefits
Department of Administration
6th Floor, State Office Building
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: 465-4470
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 226
MARY ALICE MCKEEN, Attorney
212 West 9th Street
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: 586-4061
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 227
SHERRIE GOLL
Alaska Women's Lobby
P.O. Box 22156
Juneau, AK 99802
Telephone: 463-6744
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 226 and 227
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 110
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: 465-4968
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsored HB 227
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 422
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: 465-4457
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsored HB 10
DAVID TYLER
Alaska Fire Chief's Association
1610 Hans Way
Fairbanks, AK 99709
Telephone: 479-5672
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 10
MARK JOHNSON, Chief of Emergency Services Section
Department of Health and Social Services
431 N. Franklin, 3rd floor
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: 465-3027
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 10
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 130
SHORT TITLE: REGULATION ADOPTION PROCEDURES & REVIEW
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KELLY,James
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/27/95 157 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/27/95 157 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
02/14/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 519
02/14/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/14/95 (H) ARR AT 12:00 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
02/15/95 396 (H) COSPONSOR(S): JAMES
02/21/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/21/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/21/95 (H) ARR AT 12:00 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
02/22/95 (H) ARR AT 04:00 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
02/22/95 (H) MINUTE(ARR)
02/22/95 (S) MINUTE(ARR)
02/23/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/23/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/09/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/16/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/16/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/18/95 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 163
SHORT TITLE: COMPLIANCE COST ESTIMATES REQUIRED
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KOTT,Toohey,Kelly,MacLean
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/08/95 272 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/08/95 272 (H) STA, FIN
02/22/95 456 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KELLY, MACLEAN
02/28/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/28/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/09/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/16/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/16/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/18/95 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 201
SHORT TITLE: PRISONER LITIGATION AND APPEALS
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/27/95 488 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/27/95 488 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
02/27/95 488 (H) 3 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (LAW,CORR,DPS)
02/27/95 488 (H) 2 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (ADM)
02/27/95 488 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
03/07/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/07/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/14/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/14/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/16/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/16/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/18/95 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 234
SHORT TITLE: ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATIONS
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/06/95 590 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/06/95 590 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY
03/06/95 591 (H) 14 ZERO FISCAL NOTES(ADM,DEC,F&G)
03/06/95 591 (H) (DHSS, LABOR, LAW, DPS, DOT)
03/06/95 591 (H) (4-DCED, 2-DOE)
03/06/95 591 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
03/08/95 665 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DNR) 3/8/95
03/14/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/14/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/16/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/16/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/18/95 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 122
SHORT TITLE: MARINE MOTOR FUEL TAX
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MOSES,Grussendorf,Mackie
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/25/95 132 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/25/95 132 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE
03/16/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/18/95 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 226
SHORT TITLE: REPEAL OF MARITAL STATUS PROTECTIONS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KELLY,Rokeberg
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/03/95 565 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/03/95 565 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, HES, JUDICIARY
03/18/95 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 227
SHORT TITLE: DEFINING WHO MAY MARRY
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) ROKEBERG,Kelly
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/03/95 565 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/03/95 565 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, HES, JUDICIARY
03/18/95 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 10
SHORT TITLE: PAYMENT OF COSTS OF DWI ACCIDENTS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) DAVIES
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/06/95 23 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/16/95 23 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/95 23 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
03/18/95 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 102
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-29, SIDE A
Number 000
CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES called the meeting to order at 10:05 a.m.
Members present at the call to order were Representatives James,
Green, Ivan and Robinson. Chair James stated a quorum was
present.
HSTA - 03/18/95
HB 130 - REGULATION ADOPTION PROCEDURES & REVIEW
Number 028
BRUCE CAMPBELL, Administrative Assistant to Representative Pete
Kelly, presented a sectional analysis which outlined the
differences in Version O of HB 130. He stated Section 1
clarifies the powers and the goals set by the legislature for the
Administrative Regulation Review Committee. Section 2 has been
streamlined, deleting the thirty day time frame for the
Lieutenant Governor's office to transmit pre-filed regulations to
the Administrative Regulation Review Committee. Section 2 also
now specifies the reasons the Lieutenant Governor may return
final draft regulations to an agency, including allowing the
agency to respond to the Department of Law and the Administrative
Regulation Review Committee's comments.
Number 180
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked for a clarification of the
Department of Law's role.
MR. CAMPBELL answered there is not a full agreement between his
office and the Department of Law on what this means.
CHAIR JAMES added the committee will be hearing from the
Department of Law.
Number 200
MR. CAMPBELL returned to the sectional analysis, stating there
were virtually no changes to Section 3. Section 4 is a
relatively new section which attempts to maintain consistency
with Section 6 and to clarify the Department of Law's role in
reviewing regulations for statutory consistency. Section 5
matches the 30-day period allowed the Regulation Review Committee
to the 30 days given the Department of Law. He clarified it is
not a hard deadline, since it can be extended by the Department
of Law, but it allows the Lieutenant Governor to track
regulations in the Department of Law and requires the Department
of Law to provide an expected time frame for its review of a
complex regulation.
Number 245
CHAIR JAMES inquired about who would file an order for repeal.
MR. CAMPBELL replied the Lieutenant Governor could file an order
for repeal.
CHAIR JAMES asked if this would include an order for repeal that
comes to the Lieutenant Governor from someone else.
MR. CAMPBELL replied yes, this was part of the code throughout
the Administrative Procedures Act.
Number 261
MR. CAMPBELL said Section 6 clarifies some earlier confusion and
also exempts Board of Fisheries and Board of Game from providing
examples of economically feasible methods of complying with the
proposed regulatory action.
Number 311
REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON asked why the Boards of Fish and
Game are exempt, and why those boards were picked over other
boards, for example the Board of Education.
MR. CAMPBELL replied, because they were more familiar with the
Board of Fish and the Board of Game, and those boards are
recognized as having one of the most open and speedy public
processes in the state since they need to respond quickly within
an applicable season.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if the State Board of Education
might have similar needs, regarding students.
MR. CAMPBELL responded this was good input and could make an
excellent amendment.
Number 335
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN expressed concern about fishery allocations
being rejected by the Lieutenant Governor and agreed with
exempting the Board of Fisheries.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON clarified she agreed the Board of
Fisheries should be exempt; her concern was that perhaps other
boards should be exempt as well.
Number 361
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said as he reads the bill, if there is an
amendment to an existing regulation, the agency is required to
give an example of an economically feasible method of complying.
He asked if this meant a method for the public to comply, a
method for all the users affected to comply, or a method for the
agency to comply.
MR. CAMPBELL said it is intended to be an example of compliance
for the users and the impact upon them, not the agency's
compliance. He said the word "private" had been inadvertently
eliminated, but that the intent is to give examples of how the
individuals impacted by the regulation can comply.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he is still concerned with the agency's
ability to give an example that sufficiently covers how an
individual might comply.
MR. CAMPBELL gave an example of standards set for drilling mud in
an oil well; the agency could propose using "drilling mud XYZ"
and that example would show a product which had been analyzed and
met necessary requirements.
Number 419
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked, using the same example, whether it
included economically viable alternatives.
MR. CAMPBELL replied the issue is to require examples of how
compliance with a regulation can be achieved in an economically
feasible manner.
Number 443
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said "economically" is a big, big area, and
he still was not clear on the meaning.
MR. CAMPBELL said regulations can become too specific and thus
cost too much, and this is not the legislative intent.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he still "saw a train wreck happening
there."
Number 476
CHAIR JAMES said it appears to her that maybe there are some
regulations where it is the intent of the legislature to be very
specific. She asked if there is no economically feasible method
for compliance, would stating "there is none" be approved under
the language of the bill.
MR. CAMPBELL answered "no."
CHAIR JAMES asked if this meant every regulation written would
have to have an economically feasible method of compliance.
MR. CAMPBELL answered "yes."
Number 488
MR. CAMPBELL continued with the sectional analysis, stating
Sections 7 and 8 are virtually unchanged; they just clarify
constructional language making the added requirements of Section
6 exempt from emergency regulations.
Number 495
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved acceptance of CS for HB 130, Version
O, dated 3/17/95, as the work draft. There were no objections.
Number 501
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON referred to the need for date changes on
Mr. Campbell's flow chart. She asked why the entire power for
these decisions is given to the Lieutenant Governor and not the
Governor.
Number 516
MR. CAMPBELL replied the Lieutenant Governor has traditionally
been the repository for regulations and they were not quite
willing to break with that tradition. He added if the
legislature gave that power to the Governor, whose job is largely
that of delegating authority to commissioners, directors,
regional managers, and others, then authority over regulations
would be delegated to an unelected official. In addition, the
Governor cannot be expected to read all the regulations. This
would bring the regulation process to a halt. He agreed deciding
who has that authority it is an important issue, because the
responsible party is authorized to create laws.
Number 546
CHAIR JAMES said as she understand current statutes, final draft
approval is given by Department of Law. She asked if the
Lieutenant Governor refused to sign a regulation, would it go
back through the Department of Law and what would happen to it
after that, under HB 130.
MR. CAMPBELL replied it would go directly back to the adopting
agency, which would respond directly to the concerns of the
Lieutenant Governor. He added HB 130 is not attempting to be a
regulation reform bill; it is trying to codify some of the better
existing practices within the Administrative Procedures Act. He
said there are larger goals and questions which need to be
addressed with respect to the entire delegation of authority to
the Administrative branch, and he is interested in working on
that separate from the small tasks which HB 130 is trying to
achieve.
Number 570
CHAIR JAMES returned to her question, stating currently the
Department of Law's statutory attorney is the individual who has
the final say, and asking if HB 130 gives that final authority
instead to the Lieutenant Governor.
MR. CAMPBELL said the Department of Law would still have the
authority to say "no," but the Lieutenant Governor would have the
authority to have his concerns addressed.
Number 582
DEBORAH BEHR, Regulations Attorney with the Department of Law,
discussed issues regarding the CS for HB 130. She said the CS
made substantial improvement but she still had concerns. She
believes the bill is unconstitutional by delegating the power to
return regulations directly to the Lieutenant Governor, instead
of the delegating it to the Governor who could in turn delegate
it to the Lieutenant Governor, because the Constitution states
the Governor is the head of the Executive Branch. Under HB 130,
if the Governor and Lieutenant Governor had a disagreement, the
Lieutenant Governor could continue to return regulations to state
agencies even though the Governor and the entire Cabinet thought
the regulations were in the public interest and followed the law.
MS. BEHR added HB 130 has no limit on the number of times the
Lieutenant Governor can send regulations back; if there is a
policy disagreement between a Commissioner and the Lieutenant
Governor, the bill could continue being sent back an unlimited
number of times.
MS. BEHR clarified her role, saying under existing law she may
not look for policy issues; she can only investigate whether
regulations are legal, constitutional, and whether they follow
the process. The Lieutenant Governor currently files regulations
and asks for briefings on regulations but has no role in policy
issues. Policy issues are handled at the Cabinet level.
MS. BEHR added the existing system has some checks and balances.
Regulations can be challenged in court for declaratory judgement
as arbitrary and capricious. A less expensive way which the
average person can use is to petition the state agency to look at
a regulation; this can even be done by letter, without hiring an
attorney, so there is no real cost. Many people are not aware of
this petition process, which is in the Administrative Procedures
Act.
Number 621
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON inquired if the commissioners have a
responsibility to respond to such a petition.
MS. BEHR replied the commissioner must either disapprove the
petition or "set it on for notice" within 30 days. If this is
not done, an attorney can bring a declaratory judgement to make
the commissioner take an action on the petition.
Number 636
MS. BEHR continued, saying as she reads HB 130, the Boards of
Fish and Game are exempt only from giving an example of an
economically feasible method, which is a very small part of the
process. The Lieutenant Governor could send regulations back at
any other point in the process, which would create "total chaos
in the fishing season." If these Boards are to be exempted
completely, HB 130 does not do that.
Number 651
MS. BEHR discussed page 2, line 14, which refers to the
Regulation Review Committee providing comments within 30 days.
This could make a mandate that the Board meet every 30 days; it
would be difficult to get a quorum during the summer and during
elections. It might be more appropriate to state, "If they are
going to issue comments, they have to do it within 30 days."
That would address her concern with the bill being so
"open-ended, that they could provide comments for years."
MS. BEHR referred to the next section which deals with returning
regulations to the Lieutenant Governor, reiterating it may be
unconstitutional, and also she was concerned because some
regulations cannot wait the full 30 days.
Number 679
CHAIR JAMES asked if the "emergency regulations" provision would
generally solve this problem when an answer is needed sooner than
30 days.
MS. BEHR replied she did not believe so, because the standards
for emergency regulations in Alaska require "the immediate
preservation of the public health, safety, and welfare," and
there is another section of the Administrative Procedures Act
which says "emergencies are to rarely occur."
MS. BEHR mentioned she was confused because when a regulation is
disapproved by the Department of Law for legal reasons, they
return it to the commissioner directly without giving it to the
Lieutenant Governor. She could not tell whether HB 130 asks her
to do the disapproval letter then give it to the Lieutenant
Governor and require him to return it, which seems to create
extra paper work and delay; or if it would set up a situation
where state agencies have a right to respond to legal advice by
the Department of Law which would set up a perception that legal
issues are a negotiation process. She added the attorney general
is the chief legal officer in the state and has the final call on
whether something is constitutionally legal.
Number 703
MS. BEHR referred to page 3, lines 9 and 10, saying she had given
a drafted suggestion to the staff amending it to read "along with
the notice, send a copy of the regulation."
TAPE 95-29, SIDE B
Number 000
MS. BEHR added the requirement for providing a transcribed,
written record of testimony on regulations creates an added cost
and a time delay, which is contrary to an effort to reduce the
cost of state government.
Number 024
MS. BEHR cited page 4, line 9, suggesting if the bill sponsor is
trying to create dialogue between the state agency and the public
on fiscal costs, then "fiscal costs" should be included.
Requiring written responses to all oral comments would
substantially add to costs. She expressed concerns about lines
13 through 16 requiring an agency to weigh, evaluate, or
otherwise utilize public comment that is nonfactual or an
expression of preference; this would eliminate a great deal of
public input.
MS. BEHR referred to page 4, line 19, which requires a written
example of an economically feasible method for complying, stating
she fears this is an "open door for court suits." She suggested
adding an exception for "good faith," or adding a prohibition
against someone bringing suit based on the agency's example. She
added some industries are on the cutting edge of scientific
information and might come up with much better methods.
Number 117
CHAIR JAMES called Mr. Campbell back to the table to respond to
Ms. Behr's comments.
Number 130
MR. CAMPBELL said the bill sponsor's intent may not have been
expressed well, in light of Ms. Behr's comments, and her
suggestions would be incorporated. Specifically, he stated on
page 4, lines 17-20, a definition of "economically feasible" is
needed.
Number 175
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referred to page 2, the danger of "getting
into a loop" and the difficulty of getting a quorum in certain
seasons of the year.
MR. CAMPBELL replied maybe the "shall" should be changed to
"may," and the Regulation Review Committee should be given a time
limit for responding instead of a mandate to respond.
CHAIR JAMES asked whether this change would mean if the 30 days
passed without a response from the Committee, the opportunity to
respond would be gone.
MR. CAMPBELL said this was correct.
Number 200
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if the Committee did not respond
within the 30 days, would this default be considered the same as
an acceptance.
MS. BEHR responded that in order to avoid the Committee's lack of
response being interpreted to mean the legislature affirms a
policy, the bill should say to the Committee, "If you are going
to comment, do it within 30 days."
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if tape recordings would work in place
of written records of testimony, to save time and money.
MR. CAMPBELL responded in the affirmative. He added he
recognized the need to more completely exempt the Boards of Fish
and Game.
MS. BEHR reiterated requiring written records of publicly-noticed
meetings creates additional cost and time delay.
Number 240
CHAIR JAMES commented on her experience with the concealed carry
regulations. She had several requests for written transcripts of
the public testimony; it would have been a massive amount of
transcription, and she was anxious to get the regulations through
the process, so she settled for the tapes instead.
Number 253
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON referred to placing limits on the number
of times the Lieutenant Governor could send regulations back,
stating she agreed this would be a good idea.
MR. CAMPBELL agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON commented the bill sponsor would have to
determine what he thought would be a fair number, but she felt
strongly a limit needed to be stated in the bill.
Number 290
CHAIR JAMES spoke to Mr. Campbell, stating a number of changes
had been discussed and requested by the State Affairs Committee.
She noted he had agreed to these changes, and requested he
closely review the minutes of this meeting and, if the bill is
moved at this meeting, address these changes.
MR. CAMPBELL responded the changes and comments voiced today were
excellent, and part of a valuable process. He stated he and the
bill sponsor were committed to address those points.
Number 325
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN made a motion to move CSHB 130 from the State
Affairs Committee, with individual recommendations and attached
fiscal note, and with requested changes noted.
Number 337
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON commented she would not stop the process,
but she believed the bill sponsor's intent was not achieved. She
noted there is a desire to streamline the regulation process and
stop bad regulations, but HB 130 does not accomplish this; in
fact it causes more problems than it solves. She hopes, as the
bill moves on, it will be redrafted to achieve what everyone
wants. She added there is a long ways to go before that happens.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN agreed, declaring the bill is what he wants
from a State Affairs position, but from perhaps a legal position
it would need a lot of work, and the transcript of suggestions
made in this meeting will be valuable. With that in mind, he
would vote to move the bill.
Number 365
CHAIR JAMES asked if there were objections to moving the bill.
There were none, so CSHB 130(STA) passed out of the State Affairs
Committee.
HSTA - 03/18/95
HB 163 - COMPLIANCE COST ESTIMATES REQUIRED
Number 386
ROD MOURANT, Administrative Assistant to Representative Pete
Kott, presented a blank committee substitute work draft for HB
163, 9-LS0661/C dated 3/16/95. He reported the only change
appears on page 2, lines 5 through 9, precluding an agency which
has prepared a cost compliance estimate in good faith from being
challenged in court. Draft C was prepared based on concerns
raised by Representative Porter.
Number 416
DEBORAH BEHR, Regulations Attorney for Department of Law, stated
the "good faith" provision to protect agencies from lawsuits is
very valuable, but it could create lawsuits unless the bill
prohibits private parties from suing. She expressed concern that
"costs" are not defined in the bill; it is unclear whether it
includes indirect costs, overhead, and private costs to the
customer. She prefers the "example" choice in the previous bill.
She added the Boards of Fisheries and Game should possibly be
excluded from being sued by private parties if the cost of state
government is to be cut.
Number 466
MS. BEHR referred to page 2, line 3, saying it is too open-ended
and invites court suits.
Number 472
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked Ms. Behr if she had considered how
to define "costs."
MS. BEHR said she would talk to the Office of Management and
Budget, and work with the sponsor. She suggested the sponsor
speak to the legislative auditor also.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked about also exempting the State
Board of Education.
MS. BEHR said she did not feel as strongly about the Board of
Education because they can screen regulations before they go out
for public notice, whereas the Boards of Fish and Game have to
give public notice of every proposal.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked where an exemption for the Boards
of Fish and Game would fit in the bill.
MS. BEHR said a new Section (c) would have to be added reading
"for the purposes of this section, `State Agency' does not
include the Board of Fish and the Board of Game."
Number 500
CHAIR JAMES stated she would like to move this bill on to the
Finance Committee with a request for the sponsor to address these
legal concerns. She does not want the State Affairs Committee to
appear neglectful in addressing these legal issues, so she wants
assurance from the sponsor of HB 163 that appropriate amendments
will be presented to the Finance Committee.
Number 535
MR. MOURANT noted the concerns just expressed by Ms. Behr were
new to him. He added her concerns do deal with financial issues,
and he will certainly call them to the attention of the Finance
Committee and work with Departments of Law, Management and
Budget, and the co-sponsors of HB 163 in adopting appropriate
changes.
Number 535
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said she strongly wants the sponsor to
exempt the Boards of Fish and Game and to include a definition of
the cost of compliance. She asked if the sponsor could do a
sponsor substitute including these changes.
Number 576
CHAIR JAMES said she did not recommend doing a sponsor
substitute.
Number 576
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said he felt comfortable the proposed changes
would be addressed in the Finance Committee. He moved to accept
the CS, version C, as the working document. There were no
objections.
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN made a motion to move CS HB 163(STA) from
committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal
note, with the understanding that concerns brought forth by the
State Affairs Committee would be addressed at the next committee
of referral. There were no objections; therefore CSHB 163(STA)
was moved out of committee.
Number 600
CHAIR JAMES called the meeting back to order after a short break.
HSTA - 03/18/95
HB 201 - PRISONER LITIGATION AND APPEALS
LAURIE OTTO, Deputy Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Department of Law, presented HB 201. She explained the Criminal
Division, under her supervision, is comprised of District
Attorney's Offices, the Department of Public Safety, and the
Department of Corrections. When Governor Knowles took office he
instructed her to find areas where she could cut back, and she
realized the area of corrections' litigations had seen a 20
percent increase every year for the past 6 years. In looking at
what other states had done, she discovered this has been a
growing problem nationwide, with bored prisoners filing
recreational litigation. She added if "you or I" file a civil
suit, we pay filing fees and are at financial risk, whereas a
prisoner is indigent, pays no filing fees, and is at no financial
risk. Other states, New York being the first, have imposed
minimal filing fees on prisoners, even if they are indigent. New
York saw a 50 percent decrease in the number of cases filed.
This is the first focus of HB 201. It imposes a filing fee of 20
percent of the 6-month average monthly balance in a prisoner's
inmate account, thus creating a financial stake on the part of
the person filing a lawsuit. She added HB 201 also requires a
signed statement that the suit is not malicious or frivolous or
brought in bad faith.
Number 686
MS. OTTO continued, the second focus of HB 201 is to put some
finality in judgments in criminal cases by stating requests for
post-conviction relief must be filed within two years of the date
of conviction or within one year after the conclusion of an
appeal, and by placing a limit on the number of relief
applications which can be filed in state court. Throughout the
bill, she said, they have tried to balance prisoners' rights of
access to the courts in cases of legitimate need while getting
the state out from under the burden of having to respond to
excessive petitions.
MS. OTTO concluded that third, the bill puts a limit on sentence
appeals filed by prisoners, aiming at appeals the courts do not
usually accept, but which "clog up the system and cost a lot of
money."
TAPE 95-30, SIDE A
Number 000
MS. OTTO added if a prisoner tries to withdraw a plea before
sentence, it is treated the same as in current law. If a
prisoner tries to withdraw a plea after sentencing, it is moved
into the time limits just outlined in the section on
post-conviction relief applications.
Number 036
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commented it sounded like a good bill, and
asked if a person convicted for 20 years could not request
reduction of sentence.
MS. OTTO replied if a person makes an agreement with the state to
plead guilty with the understanding the sentence cannot exceed 20
years, that person cannot file an appeal to have the sentence
reduced to less than 20 years.
Number 084
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a motion to move HB 201 from committee
with individual recommendations and zero fiscal notes. Hearing
no objection, the bill passed out of committee.
HSTA - 03/18/95
HB 234 - ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATIONS
Number 096
TERESA WILLIAMS, Assistant Attorney General, testifying via
teleconference from Anchorage, presented HB 234. She stated the
bill is an effort to save time and money in Administrative
Procedures Act (APA) adjudication. It clarifies language in the
APA, changes the requirement for "registered mail" to "certified
mail," allows telephonic hearing, clarifies witness expenses,
gives agencies discretion to allow reasonable types of discovery,
clarifies standards for burdens of proof, and sets time limits
for reconsideration petitions.
Number 204
CHAIR JAMES commented she appreciated the efforts to smooth out
the process and said she was sure there would be money saved as a
result.
Number 210
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referred to the "or" on page 3, asking, if a
party objecting to telephonic witnessing lived 31 miles away,
would his objection be over-ruled.
MS. WILLIAMS replied no, personal participation could always be
required if telephonic participation would substantially
prejudice the objecting party's rights.
Number 225
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON made a motion to move HB 234 from
committee with individual recommendations and zero fiscal note.
Hearing no objection, HB 234 was moved out of committee.
HSTA - 03/18/95
HB 122 - MARINE MOTOR FUEL TAX
Number 235
REPRESENTATIVE CARL MOSES, Sponsor, presented HB 122, stating it
would provide a mechanism for distributing back to municipalities
a portion of marine fuel taxes for expenditures on water and
harbor facilities. Fifty percent of the collected tax revenue
would be distributed. He commented that many coastal communities
depend on harbor facilities as the engine driving their economy;
HB 122 would provide assistance to local governments for
development and maintenance of docks and harbors.
Number 284
REPRESENTATIVE MOSES referred to this type of improvement in Cold
Bay in his district, made by taking money from Unalaska because
he considered Cold Bay a higher priority.
REPRESENTATIVE MOSES added that unless fishery money is allocated
in this manner, much of it will be given to the state of
Washington. He said this is overlooked when the legislature
talks about economic development.
Number 335
REPRESENTATIVE MOSES said Alaska needs facilities for boats 60
feet and under. In Norton Sound, for example, there was no place
to moor small boats last winter so the city had to lift them out
of the water for storage on the city dock, at much expense; some
of the boats filled with water and were damaged anyway. Bristol
Bay has a minimum of 500 boats sitting on the beach eight to ten
months a year. These boats could fish in the Dutch Harbor area
if there were facilities to accommodate them. He distributed
three amendments.
Number 400
WILLIAM HUNTER, Bethel City Manager, testified via teleconference
from Bethel. He said HB 122 would provide revenues to maintain
their harbor area, and the city of Bethel supports the bill.
Number 415
PAUL DICK, Juneau Operations Officer, Income and Excise Audit
Division, Department of Revenue, said HB 122 would cause the
Department of Revenue to share approximately 50 percent of
current marine fuel taxes with municipalities. Currently, they
collect $8.2 million a year in marine fuel taxes, so $4.1 million
would be shared to local municipalities and communities, which is
reflected in the fiscal note. Motor fuel wholesalers would be
required to report their locations so income could be allocated
to the correct municipalities, and this would be an additional
reporting requirement. An additional position would need to be
funded to track the fuel reporting.
Number 460
MR. DICK stated the Administration opposes this bill because of
the impact on revenues. He added he had worked with the sponsor
on amendments.
Number 470
REPRESENTATIVE MOSES asked the committee to adopt the three
amendments he distributed.
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN requested a summary of the amendments.
Number 485
MR. DICK responded that amendment number 1 changes language in
the bill to reflect the taxing of motor fuel, not boats.
MR. DICK continued, amendment number 2 adds a new subsection on
page 1, line 2, after "municipalities" to clarify that the tax is
shared at the final point of sale.
MR. DICK said amendment number 3 also adds a new subsection on
page 3, line 14, to clarify tax revenue collected is also at the
final point of sale.
Number 508
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commented these amendments resolved his
questions, and he made a motion to move all three amendments,
numbered 1, 2, and 3, dated 3/17/95. There were no objections.
CHAIR JAMES said she would do a committee substitute to reflect
these three amendments.
Number 518
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN made a motion to move HB 122, as amended,
from committee with individual recommendations and attached
fiscal notes. There were no objections, so HB 122 was moved.
HSTA - 03/18/95
HB 226 - REPEAL OF MARITAL STATUS PROTECTIONS
HSTA - 03/18/95
HB 227 - PROHIBIT SAME SEX MARRIAGES
Number 524
CHAIR JAMES noted there had been requests that House Bill 226 and
227 be heard together for the sake of time, and added she wanted
to hear all teleconference testimony today on both bills.
Number 546
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KELLY, sponsor of HB 226, stated the Superior
Court recently decided unmarried couples are entitled to the same
employment benefits as married couples. This decision was the
result of a broad interpretation in the Human Rights Act
prohibiting discrimination based on marital status. The court
concluded the University of Alaska violated this human rights
directive when health benefits were refused to the unmarried
partner of a University employee. It is feared this decision
will have a far-reaching impact as other agencies and finally
private industry are sued for failing to recognize domestic
partner status in their benefit packages. Because the definition
of domestic partner is not grounded in contract and tradition as
is marriage, it is impossible to predict future relationships
that would qualify. Workers' benefit packages are targeted for
distribution to an unknown panoply of partners who are able to
attach themselves to state employees. HB 226 attempts to reduce
the uncertainty employers face as a result of this court decision
and to close the door on a possible onslaught of domestic
partnerships created solely to gain benefits under the court
decision.
CHAIR JAMES asked if the sponsor statement on HB 227 should be
heard now.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said he had no objection to hearing
testimony on the two bills together, but wanted HB 226 considered
separately. He passed out a letter from the Human Rights
Commission supporting HB 226.
CHAIR JAMES requested the teleconference testifiers be brief and
invited written testimony by FAX. She asked testifiers to
specify which bill they are addressing.
Number 601
RANDALL BURNS, Executive Director of the Alaska Civil Liberties
Union, said the ACLU is opposed to HB 226 because he does not
believe the concerns which Representative Kelly listed are
legitimate. Judge Greene's decision stated the University could
not discriminate on the basis of marital status in determining
which employees would receive additional compensation in the form
of third party health coverage. The ACLU also does not believe
in allowing this discrimination and thinks the state should be
ashamed for considering HB 226. He agreed with Judge Greene's
statement that "certainly unmarried heterosexuals have no more
claim to financial interdependence than unmarried homosexuals."
He also agreed with the statement at the end of her decision that
"this does nothing more than prohibit the University from using
marital status to determine whether or not to provide its
employees with additional compensation in the form of subsidized
health care coverage for the employees' partners." He added HB
226 does nothing to solve the constitutionality of denying
benefits to the partners of employees on the basis of marital
status.
Number 674
MIKE HUMPHREY, Statewide Director of Benefits for the University
of Alaska system, testified via teleconference from Fairbanks,
stressing the importance of the University designing a benefits
plans which meets the eligibility issues. He stated the
University believes HB 226 will help clarify these issues and he
supports the bill.
Number 685
PAUL EAGLIN, Associate General Council employed by the University
of Alaska, testified via teleconference from Fairbanks in support
of HB 226. He stated he represented the University of Alaska in
the Tumeo and Wattum v. University of Alaska litigation, and he
felt HB 226 was well-tailored to address the difficulty they ran
into in the litigation.
Number 694
MARK TUMEO testified via teleconference from Fairbanks, referring
to an amendment distributed earlier by Representative Robinson.
CHAIR JAMES informed Mr. Tumeo the amendment had not been
submitted yet, but he could testify on the amendment.
MR. TUMEO said he was one of the litigants in the lawsuit Tumeo
and Wattum v. University of Alaska. He asked the committee to
accept Representative Robinson's amendment.
TAPE 95-30, SIDE B
Number 000
MR. TUMEO added HB 226 "guts the Human Rights Law of Alaska" and
sets a precedent allowing the majority to create special rights
for married individuals to be paid more than unmarried
individuals. He said Representative Robinson's amendment
addresses Representative Kelly's stated concerns without
discriminating on the basis of marital status. States which have
adopted laws similar to Representative Robinson's amendment have
experienced no premium increases and only an average of .3
percent increase in applicants.
Number 050
JENNINE WILLIAMSON testified via teleconference from Fairbanks,
encouraging the committee to accept Representative Robinson's
amendment to HB 226. She believes it is wrong to discriminate
against unmarried couples who are in long-term committed
relationships. She added if economics is the issue, there are
many other avenues to explore, such as "cafeteria-style benefits"
where all employees are compensated equally.
Number 087
SANDRA BOATWRIGHT testified via teleconference from Fairbanks,
supporting Representative Robinson's amendment, and stating any
couple in a long-term committed relationship should receive the
same benefits as married couples.
Number 102
NANCY WINFORD testified via teleconference from Fairbanks,
stating HB 226 as currently written discriminates against people
who are not legally married and asking the committee to accept
the amendment which would help distinguish committed
relationships from casual relationships.
Number 148
CHAIR JAMES noted the arrival of Representative Brian Porter.
CINDY BOESSER read the following testimony written by her mother,
urging a no vote on HB 227.
"HB 227, a bill opposing the possibility of two people
of the same sex ever having the right to "marry" in
this state, is aimed directly at gay and lesbian
persons. Since eventually the courts of this country
are going to deal with this issue, it seems to me that
the great state of Alaska has much more important
things to do with its time and energy at this point
than to hassle this question.
"The thing which brings me to this hearing is that I
see in this seemingly innocuous bill only the bare
beginning of oppression of homosexual people in this
state. Bringing down what is referred to as the
`Homosexual Agenda' is one of the misguided priorities
of some people in this country right now. Since that
`agenda' is really only to be treated as equal persons
before the law and therefore is totally consistent with
the Constitution of this state and this country, I find
it unthinkable that any citizen would want to deny
equal treatment to any other citizen.
"I was born in 1925 and became a part of what I am
ashamed to say was the "silent majority" when it came
to Hitler's attempt to annihilate the Jews. I feel the
pain of my silence and the silence of most Americans at
that time. What has come to me as a renewed shock is
the discovery that at the same time, Hitler was
attempting to annihilate the homosexuals in his
country, a fact which didn't make much news at the
time. I cannot stand by and let this new attempt by a
vocal minority put a foot in that same door. HB 227
may be what some have called "not worth our time," but
I see it as an insidious beginning which must be
stopped in its tracks.
"Mildred P. Boesser
17585 Lena Loop
Juneau, AK 99801"
MS. BOESSER also read her mother's statement urging a no vote on
HB 226.
"This bill is another thinly disguised attack on
homosexual persons and runs in tandem with HB 227.
"HB 226 is saying that unless two people are "married"
they cannot have the benefits that "married" persons
enjoy, even though their commitment to each other is
for a lifetime and they hold property in common. This
is a Catch-22 for homosexual persons, as they cannot be
married, a fact that HB 227 would like to cast in
concrete.
"HB 226 discriminates on the basis of gender. Don't
waste the state's time and energy on a bill which is
contrary to the law.
"Mildred P.Boesser
17585 Lena Loop
Juneau, AK 99801"
Number 207
MS. BOESSER next read a statement from Marsha Buck opposing HB
226.
"Madam Chair and Members of the House State Affairs
Committee.
"I am Marsha Buck, Chairperson of the Juneau PFLAG
Chapter. PFLAG stands for Parents, Families and
Friends of Lesbians and Gays. PFLAG is relatively new
to Juneau and is one of more than 340 local PFLAG
groups representing approximately 27,000 families of
gay, lesbian and bisexual persons. PFLAG promotes the
health and well-being of gay, lesbian, and bisexual
persons and their families through support, education,
and advocacy to end discrimination and to secure equal
civil rights.
"We are opposed to both HB 226 and 227 as currently
written.
"We are opposed to HB 226 because we feel that it
illegally discriminates against our sons, daughters,
and friends on the basis of their marital status, a
discrimination that is clearly addressed by our Alaska
Constitution. Our daughters and sons, in their pursuit
of happiness similar to your pursuit and to my own,
enter into committed, long-term domestic partnerships
and while in those committed partnerships are entitled
to compensation, including health coverage for their
dependents, that is equal to that received by persons
in the domestic partnerships that we call marriage. I
would not come to you to seek special rights for my
daughter, but am here today to insist upon the same
rights for her as are legally available for dependents
in other spousal situations.
"My daughter's partner is working on her masters degree
at a university in the Lower 48 in a state that is
plagued by far greater financial concerns than our
wonderful state. My daughter simply had to present 2
pieces of documentation from a list of 5 possible that
showed financial dependency effective for at least 6
continuous months in order to be covered under her
partner's health insurance plan. While my daughter,
who already has her masters degree, was looking for
work when they first moved to the university community,
this coverage was crucial for her health and
well-being. It would make me feel both sad and angry
to think that she could not come home to Alaska where
she was born and raised and be treated with the same
equality and respect.
"Thank you for your time and attention. I look forward
to hearing that HB 226 has been removed from further
consideration.
"Marsha Buck
8445 Kimberly Street
Juneau, AK 99801"
MS. BOESSER read testimony from Marsha Buck opposing HB 227.
"Madam Chair and Members of the House State Affairs
Committee:
"I am Marsha Buck, Chairperson of the Juneau PFLAG
Chapter. PFLAG stands for Parents, Families and
Friends of Lesbians and Gays.
"We are opposed to HB 227.
We are opposed to HB 227 because we feel that it
illegally discriminates against our daughters and sons
on the basis of gender. As you are aware, it is all
but impossible here in Alaska for our sons and
daughters to pursue the happiness of actual marriage at
this time, and yet you now propose to add a further
layer of discrimination on top of that which already
exists. I am wondering if you have addressed important
questions about the bill such as:
"What existing problem does this bill solve?
"How many couples who do not fit this bill's definition
have requested marriage licenses? How many have been
denied licenses?
"Would this bill take our state back to the way the
Deep South was when it was illegal for African
Americans and Caucasians to marry?
"Could this bill be interpreted to mean that same sex
marriage is a crime?
"As I listened to the recent campaign speeches and the
promises at the outset of this Legislative session, I
heard this Legislature vow to remove government from
the personal lives of Alaskans and focus on public
needs. I heard promises to reduce government and only
focus on what government really should be involved in.
This bill does exactly the opposite! It would be
difficult to get much more involved in the personal
lives of Alaskans than HB 227 proposes to do! To give
our daughters and sons an opportunity for the happiness
that comes with both a legal and committed, long term
relationship, I ask that you remove HB 227 from any
further consideration.
"Thank you for your time and attention.
"Marsha Buck
8445 Kimberly Street
Juneau, AK 99801"
Number 284
SUE HARGIS, Chair of Southeast Alaska Gay and Lesbian Alliance
(SEGLA), testified first on HB 226, urging the committee to stop
the bill and not pass it from committee because it sets up
discriminatory practices in paying some individuals more for
equal work just because they have entered into the only
acceptable legal contract. A spousal equivalency contract is
also legally binding. The state should have the option to pay
benefits to all who have entered into a contract, or none of
those who have entered into a contract. Just because IRS and
other agencies discriminate based on marital status, this does
not give Alaska the right to discriminate upon that basis.
MS. HARGIS testified in opposition to HB 227, stating it is not
in the best interests of the state of Alaska to rewrite the
statute to clarify who may enter into a marriage contract. HB
227 will likely end up creating expensive litigation and is
discriminatory on the basis of gender. If HB 227 is intended to
prevent homosexual committed relationships, this statute revision
will not accomplish that. The state has no business regulating
who may enter into civil contracts.
Number 369
RANDALL BURNS, Executive Director of the Alaska Civil Liberties
Union, testified again via teleconference from Fairbanks, in
opposition to HB 227. The ACLU sees no reason for the
legislation. In addition, HB 227 would open the state to
expensive litigation. To date, no state recognizes same-sex
marriages, and Alaska is not at risk of this. Mr. Burns asked,
"Why fix something that ain't broke?"
Number 402
CAROL ANDERSON testified in opposition to HB 226, stating it
would amend the Human Rights Statutes to allow denial of benefits
to a person not legally married to the employee. Health benefits
are a tangible and valuable part of an employee's salary, and
married people in effect have higher wages than their single
co-workers because their spouses are also covered by insurance.
This amounts to married workers being paid over $300 a month more
than single workers if they work for the state. Judge Greene
rightfully concluded this practice is illegal discrimination on
the basis of marital status. Employers need to either drop
insurance benefits for spouses of employees or extend those
benefits to the non-married partners of employees. HB 226 would
codify an illegal practice. She added she supports
Representative Robinson's amendment.
MS. ANDERSON urged the committee to take no action on HB 227 and
to let the current gender-neutral Alaska statute regarding
marriage stand.
Number 438
TALMIDGE BAILEY said many of the points he planned to cover have
already been covered. He said, "We are told who we can go to the
prom with, who we can take to the office picnic, and it
continues....People who do that derive their authority from
institutions such as the state, so the state is the one who needs
to take the steps to right the wrong."
Number 470
DANIEL COLLISON, Vice President of the Southeast Alaska Gay and
Lesbian Alliance, testified in opposition to HB 226. He recalled
a conversation with his father three years ago when he told his
dad he was gay. Despite his apprehensions, his father and all
his siblings freely and abundantly extended their love and
support. He added he intends to marry in the future, and he
knows his father and mother will extend to the man he chooses as
a partner all the same warmth and graciousness which they have
shown to all five of their other sons- and daughters-in-law. He
asked, if the sex of his marriage partner is no concern of his
parents, how can it be the concern of the members of the State
Affairs Committee.
Number 516
BOB STALNAKER, Director, Division of Retirement and Benefits,
Department of Administration, testified in support of HB 226,
stating it serves to support and certify the division's current
policy. Under statute the state is required to provide health
insurance for employees' spouses and dependent children.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked Mr. Stalnaker if his department had
any problems with her amendment which defines domestic partners
of employees and outlines rigid standards for contracts between
them.
MR. STALNAKER replied he had read the draft and said it serves to
qualify a legal relationship, which marriage also does. Absent
marriage and absent a spousal relationship, his department would
still interpret the law as they currently do, with traditional
definitions.
Number 548
MARY ALICE MCKEEN stated she is an attorney, licensed to practice
law in Alaska since 1979, a mother of three, and happily married
since 1979. She testified in opposition to HB 227 as an
individual, with no formal affiliation. She believes people
should be able to choose whom they marry unless there is a
compelling state interest in preventing it, for example with very
young people or people related by blood to a certain degree.
Otherwise, it should be a personal choice, and the state has no
compelling interest in prohibiting same-sex marriages. She
believes same-sex relationships are as healthy as opposite-sex
relationships. Homosexuality is no longer medically defined as
deviant, and prohibiting such relationships facilitates
nonstability.
Number 615
CHAIR JAMES referred to Ms. McKeen's statement that there should
be some rules set down for marriage, prohibiting close blood
relationships for example, because it could cause a problem in
the offspring. She asked if some time in the future same-sex
marriages were allowed, should close blood relationships still be
prohibited from marrying?
MS. MCKEEN said there would be no offspring to be genetically
harmed, but there might be other factors which could harm a child
whose parents are closely related. She said if there would be no
legitimate state interest in preventing harm to the children, it
probably should not be prohibited.
Number 640
SHERRIE GOLL spoke for the Alaska Women's Lobby in opposition to
HB 226 and 227 and in support of Alaska's Human Rights laws as
they stand today. She supported Representative Robinson's
proposed amendment. She added the court provided options in the
Tumeo case, giving eligibility for coverage only to those couples
who have a legal and financial responsibility for each other, and
suggesting couples in domestic partnerships could sign an
affidavit substantiating an interdependent relationship.
Number 690
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON reminded the committee that "spousal
equivalent" exists even in the legislative ethics code. She
moved her amendment number 1. There were objections.
TAPE 95-31, SIDE A
Number 000
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said there are many reasons people enter
into a long-term relationship without marrying, and her amendment
would allow them to sign a contract and have the same benefits as
those who use the legal contract of marriage.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY noted the amendment "takes HB 226 and makes
it go away" while letting the problems it addresses, stand. He
said the amendment creates discrimination based on finances.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON replied the amendment had five criteria,
not all dealing with money.
Number 082
CHAIR JAMES called for the vote on amendment number 1.
Representatives Green, Ivan, Porter and James voted no.
Representative Robinson voted yes. The amendment failed 4 to 1.
Number 097
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER made a motion to move HB 226 with
attached zero fiscal note and individual recommendations.
Hearing no objection, HB 226 was moved out of committee.
Number 118
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG. sponsor of HB 227, informed the
committee that in 1974 the Alaska Reviser of Statutes, in an
attempt to create gender-neutral language, changed the marriage
statute from the words "man and woman" to "person." Former
Representative Clem Tillion, Chair of Judiciary at the time, was
contacted, as was former Representative Genie Chance who
championed "gender-neutralling" the statutes in Alaska; both
confirmed there had been no testimony of any substance regarding
the change. HB 227 merely returns the language to its proper
form, as it appeared prior to the 1974 legislative session.
Number 215
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG reported that circumstances generated by
Judge Greene's decision in the Tumeo-Wattum case in Alaska, as
well as the Behr v. Lewin case in Hawaii, have created a
compelling state interest to take action now.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the Hawaii Supreme Court had made an
initial ruling that marriage licensing procedures in Hawaii
allowed same sex marriages. This created a fire-storm in the
Hawaiian Islands, and Representative Terrance Tom introduced a
bill which says a marriage must include a man and a woman. The
bill passed the Hawaiian Legislature in 1994. The primary
impetus in passage of the bill was to re-insert the legislature
into the development and passage of public policy; it was
believed the Judicial system had usurped the legislature's power
in formulation of public policy. Alaska's statutes are similar,
and could be similarly interpreted to allow same-sex marriages,
especially in light of Judge Greene's ruling. He referred to a
footnote on page 15 in Judge Greene's decision which states, "The
University would have to show that same-sex marriages are
prohibited in Alaska. The Alaska Supreme Court has not been
asked to decide whether Alaska's marriage statute allows for
same-sex marriages....The University has provided no legal
argument that such marriages are prohibited."
Number 255
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG concluded this is an open invitation to
generate a lawsuit in the state of Alaska. This can be corrected
very simply by amending the statute to read "by one man and one
woman..." The purpose and intent of HB 227 is to explicitly
clarify who is eligible to marry and to prohibit same-sex
marriages. His intention is not to bring up a divisive issue,
but to stop a debate which could become divisive and expensive,
and to cut off potential lawsuits "at the pass."
Number 270
MR. BURNS testified again via teleconference from Anchorage,
asking Representative Rokeberg to explain for the record why he
is opposed to same-sex marriages.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied there is a compelling state
reason to maintain existing law that revolves around marriage and
domestic relations in Alaska, relative to the impact of economic
and other problems which could occur in matters such as child
support, moral and legal obligations of primary breadwinners.
The bill also makes a public statement about the importance of
family. He believes the primary rationale in the legal contract
of marriage is to have children.
Number 312
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER made a motion to move HB 227 with
individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. There were
no objections, so HB 227 was moved out of committee.
HSTA - 03/18/95
HB 10 - PAYMENT OF COSTS OF DWI ACCIDENTS
Number 325
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES, sponsor of HB 10, read his sponsor
statement:
"HB 10 is an act that requires DWI (Driving While
Intoxicated) offenders convicted of causing a motor
vehicle accident to pay for the costs of emergency
services that respond to the accident.
"The problems and associated costs of driving while
intoxicated are clear. According to national
statistics, 43 percent of all fatal motor vehicle
accidents involve alcohol. According to the Department
of Public Safety, 40 percent of all DWI arrests involve
repeat offenders. Furthermore, alcohol related
accidents nationwide result in an economic loss of
$46.1 billion per year, according to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1990.
"House Bill 10 attempts to address these problems in
two ways. First, as a deterrent to those who drive
while intoxicated by raising the financial penalty for
doing so. By raising the financial burden to those
breaking the law, HB 10 emphasizes the seriousness of
the crime. Second, this bill shifts the financial
responsibility of the emergency services that respond
to alcohol-related accidents from law abiding, tax
paying citizens to the convicted DWI offender.
"Three states, California, Indiana, and Kansas, have
similar reimbursement laws."
Number 348
DAVID TYLER said he and the Alaska State Fire Chiefs Association
strongly support the bill. HB 10 can help them achieve their
goals of reducing the loss of life in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES pointed out the CS, work draft 9-LS0060/F,
which changes page 1, line 7, by adding "if the convicted person
or the convicted person's insurer has not already paid the
cost..." to deal with the insurance issue. He also would like to
insert the word "reasonable" in front of "cost" on line 6. He
added he had gotten approval from those in favor of the bill to
make these changes.
Number 388
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved the amendment on line 6. There were
no objections.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved to adopt the CS version F, as amended,
as the working document. There were no objections.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES pointed out letters of support in the
packet from Mothers Against Drunk Drivers and the Alaska
Municipal League.
CHAIR JAMES thanked Representative Davies for submitting the
bill, saying she thought it was a good bill.
Number 404
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN inquired about the definition of "emergency
medical technician," whether this would include community health
aides in rural communities.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said he was not sure.
MARK JOHNSON, Chief of the Emergency Services Section, Department
of Health and Social Services, said community health aides in
Alaska are all trained initially as emergency trauma technicians,
and a large number of them have attained emergency medical
technician certification. If the bill only refers to "emergency
medical technician" it would not include every community health
aide. He suggested that adding "emergency trauma technician"
would include every health aide in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said he would be interested in including
"emergency trauma technician" in the bill language.
CHAIR JAMES remarked on the difficulty of meeting concerns of
both urban and rural areas in Alaska, stating legislation should
be in the best interest of the state as a whole.
Number 428
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said he would offer the addition of "health
aide" in the definition at the next committee.
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said he would like to include all those
"qualified, with a certificated license."
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON made a motion to move CSHB 10 (STA) with
individual recommendations, and attached zero fiscal note. There
were no objections.
CHAIR JAMES adjourned the meeting at 2:00 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|