Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/28/1996 08:15 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 28, 1996
8:15 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jeannette James, Chair
Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chair
Representative Joe Green
Representative Ivan Ivan
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Caren Robinson
Representative Ed Willis
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present.
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
* HOUSE BILL NO. 349
"An Act relating to elections; relating to the division of
elections; relating to voter registration procedures; and providing
for an effective date."
- PASSED CSHB 349(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HOUSE BILL NO. 198
"An Act relating to absences from the state and eligibility for
permanent fund dividends; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
* HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 34
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to the duration of a regular session.
- HEARD AND HELD
* HOUSE BILL NO. 485
"An Act relating to interference with the distribution or reading
of free newspapers or other free periodicals."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
* HOUSE BILL NO. 490
"An Act relating to grants and other financial assistance
authorized or made by the Alaska Science and Technology Foundation
for the BIDCO assistance program."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 349
SHORT TITLE: ELECTIONS ADMINISTRATION & VOTER REG'N
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
05/13/95 2174 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
05/13/95 2174 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
05/13/95 2174 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (GOV)
05/13/95 2174 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
03/28/96 (H) STA AT 8:15 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 198
SHORT TITLE: PFD ALLOWABLE ABSENCES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) ELTON, Robinson, Davies
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/27/95 487 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/27/95 487 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
03/28/96 (H) STA AT 8:15 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HJR 34
SHORT TITLE: LIMIT LEGISLATIVE SESSION TO 90 DAYS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) SANDERS
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/08/95 641 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/08/95 641 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
03/28/96 (H) STA AT 8:15 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
DIANE SHRINER, Elections Outreach Coordinator
Division of Elections
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
P.O. Box 110017
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0017
Telephone: (907) 465-3051
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 349.
KATHLEEN STRASBAUGH, Assistant Attorney General
Governmental Affairs Section
Civil Division
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
Telephone: (907) 465-3600
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 349.
REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 112
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-4947
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 198.
NANCI A. JONES, Director
Central Office
Permanent Fund Dividend Division
Department of Revenue
P.O. Box 110460
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0460
Telephone: (907) 465-2323
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 198.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY SANDERS
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 414
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-4945
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HJR 34.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-42, SIDE A
Number 0015
The House State Affairs Committee was called to order by Chair
Jeannette James at 8:15 a.m. Members present at the call to order
were Representatives Porter, Ivan, Green, Ogan, Willis and James.
Member absent was Representative Robinson.
HB 349 - ELECTIONS ADMINISTRATION & VOTER REG'N
CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES called on Diane Shriner, Office of the
Lieutenant Governor, to present HB 349.
Number 0054
DIANE SHRINER, Elections Outreach Coordinator, Division of
Elections, Office of the Lieutenant Governor, thanked Walter
Wilcox, Committee Aide, House State Affairs Committee, for his help
on the committee substitute (9-GH0051/C). She announced Kathleen
Strasbaugh, Department of Law, was also here to answer any
questions regarding the National Voter Registration Act of 1993
(NVRA). She explained CSHB 349(STA) (9-GH0051/C) was primarily a
housekeeping bill for the Division of Elections. The sections in
the bill addressed things that the division already had the
capability to do, or had begun to do already. For example, the
division did not use paper ballots anymore but instead used ballot
cards. The division also did not use magnet tapes and computer
centers anymore but instead was on-line. The bill also allowed the
concept of voting by FAX. Many of the sections also described the
protection of ballot secrecy using a secrecy sleeve. Furthermore,
the bill also contained two substantive sections recommended by the
Election Transition Policy Team. The first recommended simplifying
the role of the personal representative in helping an elderly or
disabled person to vote (Sec. 20). The second recommended a pilot
project for total by-mail elections where feasible (Sec. 40). She
suggested eliminating line 21, page 14, "are located in a rural
area of the state and that have no more than 200 registered
voters," due to the fact that urban areas might be more conducive
or amenable to a pilot project. She reiterated CSHB 349(STA) (9-
GH0051/C) was a clean-up bill. She thanked the committee members.
The record reflected the arrival of Representative Caren Robinson
at 8:20 a.m.
Number 0442
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked Ms. Shriner what type of procedures
would be taken to ensure that the ballot casted by-mail was from
the correct person?
Number 0468
MS. SHRINER replied the secrecy envelope would be inside an outer-
envelope that would contain the voter's signature and
identification. The outer-envelope would be checked first to
ensure it was from the correct voter. The ballot would then be
separated from the outer-envelope and counted separately.
Number 0508
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he appreciated that approach. He further
wondered, however, what type of procedures would be taken to
prevent multiple ballots being cast from the same voter?
Number 0559
MS. SHRINER said there was a criminal penalty against voting more
than once which would be well publicized. The best way was to
check the by-mail ballot against the registered voter rolls to
ensure that there was only one acknowledgement of a vote per
person. Furthermore, the by-mail election was different than a
by-FAX election in that the division would make sure that there was
as much advanced notice of the registration deadline in a by-mail
election. A ballot would then be mailed to each registered voter
which would also help to avoid extra ballots floating around.
Number 0646
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said in a rural setting there were more
opportunities for fraud. A by-mail election would be on the honor
system. He wondered again if there were further safeguards that
could be taken.
Number 0735
MS. SHRINER said she appreciated his concerns. She did not have
all the answers, however.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN replied at least the department would be on
guard for those types of fraudulent activities.
Number 0751
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN explained the community of Akiak
experienced disillusionment when it participated in a by-mail
election. There was mass confusion. The first ballots were
incorrect and not everyone received the second round of ballots.
He called it a horrifying experience for the community.
Consequently, the community did not have any faith in the system
now. Furthermore, the division made the determination of the final
results. The community, however, did not trust the results and
asked for a second election. The division said that was not
possible because everything was done according to the books. He
explained the community was used to a central voting location. He
reiterated the by-mail ballot was confusing to the members of the
community. He said the English language was also a problem for
many. He was not a fan of a by-mail ballot system. He was opposed
to HB 349. He suggested deleting Sec. 40 altogether. He asked Ms.
Shriner to further explain the secrecy process.
Number 0989
MS. SHRINER apologized to Representative Ivan for the confusion in
the Akiak election. A very serious error was made and it was not
defensible. Moreover, she explained the secrecy process whereby
a person would vote and place the ballot in an envelope. There
were no marks of any kind on that envelope. That envelope was
placed inside a larger envelope containing the voter's signature
and one form of identification, such as, the voter registration
number. The division, however, was looking at a way to ensure the
privacy of the name on the outer-envelope. It was possible, now,
for a person to place that envelope inside another envelope to
ensure more privacy, however. When the envelope was received the
voter identification was checked to make sure that person was an
active registered voter. The ballot was then removed and placed
with the rest of the ballots for counting. Furthermore, she
reiterated the division did not want to force the pilot project
onto any community that did not want to participate.
Number 1145
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN asked if the definition of the term "rural" for
the Division of Elections was 200 registered voters or less?
Number 1153
MS. SHRINER replied that was just a further qualifier for the pilot
program. It was not a definition per say of the division. She
reiterated the division felt that qualifying line should be
eliminated.
Number 1174
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN wondered about the cost incurred for the pilot
project.
Number 1193
MS. SHRINER stated the Division of Elections submitted a $0 fiscal
note. A by-mail election was considered more efficient because
poll workers would not need to be hired, for example. She called
it a negligible expense. However, she did believe a poll worker's
income deserved some attention.
Number 1227
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said the rural communities were more
comfortable with a central voting location where somebody could
answer any questions and concerns of the voter.
Number 1291
MS. SHRINER said she respected the position of Representative
Ivan's community. She added, however, that even in a by-mail
election, an official was designated and available for three weeks
prior to the election. The division wanted to provide as much on-
site assistance as possible.
Number 1330
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER was concerned about the substantive
provisions in the bill. It was laudable to involve as many people
in an election as possible. However, he felt most would find a way
to corrupt the system. He said there were all sorts of
opportunities in a by-mail election for corruption. He had a
problem with the division mailing unsolicited ballots. The
division would not even know if a voter was home, for example.
Furthermore, the division would not have a way to verify those
signatures. He said it was easy to access signatures in a family,
and in the small communities in Alaska, elections were won or lost
by a handful of votes.
Number 1448
MS. SHRINER thanked Representative Porter for his concerns. The
division would look into them further.
Number 1463
REPRESENTATIVE ED WILLIS asked Ms. Shriner the reactions from the
state of Oregon regarding their by-mail election?
Number 1486
MS. SHRINER replied the response had been positive, but it was by
the people that wanted the process to work. She was not sure if
the criticisms were as quick to surface, however. She wanted to
research the pros and cons of the election further before providing
the results to the committee members. She explained the urban
communities liked the election more because it cut down on parking
problems, for example. She wanted to look at the concerns and
provide an analysis to further ensure the Alaska by-mail election
was even more safe and efficient.
Number 1543
REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON wondered about municipal elections.
Number 1554
MS. SHRINER replied the Municipal Code was in a different section
than state election law. The division did not mandate the
Municipal Code, however, a municipality frequently followed the
lead of the division.
Number 1589
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON stated, for clarification, the pilot
program would not be imposed on any community, it would have to be
requested.
Number 1597
MS. SHRINER replied, "yes, absolutely." The division would solicit
interested communities followed by an education process. The
division did not want to repeat the confusion in the Akiak
community.
Number 1637
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked Ms. Shriner what would be the
deciding body in a community?
Number 1650
MS. SHRINER replied, "I think that's an excellent question." She
was not sure of the answer.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON wondered if the deciding body would be the
municipality, a native corporation, or borough assembly, for
example. There would need to be some level of authority to decide
to participate in the pilot program.
Number 1679
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN thanked Ms. Shriner for her candor and
honesty today. He found it refreshing. He announced he agreed
with Representative Porter regarding the potential fraudulent
opportunities that a by-mail election presented. He wondered if
the ballots would be mailed to all the registered voters.
Number 1706
MS. SHRINER replied currently the division mailed the ballots to
all of the registered voters. Moreover, the division notified the
community that the election was coming and encouraged registration
before mailing the ballots.
Number 1730
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he had serious problems with that system
because of the large volume of returned mail from constituents in
his district. The system provided plenty of opportunity for fraud.
He quoted the saying, "vote early and vote often" applied to this
issue.
Number 1759
MS. SHRINER said she would ask the other states how they handled
the issues raised today and report back to the House State Affairs
Committee.
Number 1770
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER announced he was about to move to delete Sec.
20 and Sec. 40 from the bill. He cited the fraudulent behaviors in
the Chicago election of Mayor Daley. "If an opportunity for fraud
is provided, it will be taken," he said. The bill needed to be
looked at further.
CHAIR JAMES called on Kathleen Strasbaugh, Department of Law.
Number 1857
KATHLEEN STRASBAUGH, Assistant Attorney General, Governmental
Affairs Section, Civil Division, Department of Law, explained a few
years ago the legislature adopted the Motor Voter Act. She
suggested eliminating the perception that the division purged the
voter list too early. She explained voters were not purged but put
on an inactive list. The period was perceived to be too short,
however, because the ballot was questioned causing an impediment or
discouragement from voting. She recommended expanding the time to
two full election cycles of four years. Furthermore, the phrase
"appear to vote" was vague, according to Jack Chenoweth, Attorney,
Legislative Legal Counsel. It was further defined as "come to the
polls, come to an absentee voting station, apply for a mailed
ballot, or participate in a mailed election," but the vote must be
counted to avoid being purged from the rolls. Moreover, the oath
was removed and included a notification that if a voter lied he
would be in violation of the criminal statutes. She reiterated the
two issues that the division would need to work closely with the
Justice Department for clarification were the maintenance of an
inactive register list, and the crimes of moral turpitude
provisions. She thought the department could persuade the Justice
Department that those had never been employed or a problem in this
state. She explained the changes in the bill would help the
department proceed to the next step.
Number 2102
CHAIR JAMES announced she was interested in the amendments
Representative Porter mentioned earlier. She said pilot projects
needed a parallel system to compare the old way with the new way.
Furthermore, she was very excited about any opportunity to ensure
a better voter turn out. She cited a mailing in her district last
year whereby she sent 2,834 letters to those who did not vote. Of
the 2,834, 1,422 were returned not received by the addressee.
Therefore, according to the pilot project, 1,422 ballots would have
been sent to no one. Moreover, 45 replied they were absent from
town, 19 replied they had problems with absentee ballots, 13
replied they did not register on time, and 11 replied they had
transportation problems. The responses both supported and
questioned the effectiveness of a by-mail election. She was
interested in a by-mail election process, but she was not ready to
support it yet because of the diversified problems Alaska
presented.
Number 2255
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he was still concerned about the language
"appear to vote." He explained his experience as a member of the
Board of Directors for Chugach Electric in Anchorage when it went
to a mail-in ballot system. The number of ballots returned almost
doubled. He called in a significant increase. The problem,
however, was that no one followed up on the authenticity of the
ballots. He reiterated his concern in the rural communities where
there would be far greater access to multiple ballots. He would
support the amendment to delete that section, not because it was
bad, but because it was not yet controllable.
Number 2317
CHAIR JAMES suggested a motion for an amendment or the formation of
a subcommittee to work on a committee substitute.
Number 2325
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated the house cleaning provisions in the
bill were necessary. Therefore, he suggested deleting the
provisions in questions to move the bill forward.
CHAIR JAMES replied, "that's fine with me."
Number 2337
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS asked if there were any witnesses via
teleconference to testify?
CHAIR JAMES replied, "no."
Number 2344
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved to delete Sec. 20 and Sec. 40 from HB
349 (9-GH0051/C). Hearing no objection, they were so deleted.
Number 2356
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said she supported the motion but hoped
that the concept would move forward after further analysis. She
handed out an explanation of a by-mail election in Oregon.
CHAIR JAMES said it was important to look at other states but it
was important to ensure that the design fit the geographic and
demographic concerns of Alaska. She agreed with the direction of
Sec. 40, but further work was needed.
Number 2433
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN wondered if the first amendment should be
rescinded because the committee forgot to adopt the committee
substitute.
CHAIR JAMES replied, "I think we can deal with that." She called
for a motion to adopt it.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN moved to adopt CSHB 349(STA) (9-GH0051/C) for
consideration. Hearing no objection, it was so adopted.
Number 2464
MS. SHRINER thanked the committee members. She said the division
would look into the concerns of the members further.
Number 2470
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved that CSHB 349(STA) (9-GH0051/C) move
from committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal
notes, as amended. Hearing no objection, it was so moved from the
House State Affairs Committee.
HB 198 - PFD ALLOWABLE ABSENCES
TAPE 96-42, SIDE B
Number 0035
The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Committee was HB 198.
CHAIR JAMES called on Representative Kim Elton, sponsor of HB 198.
REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON said HB 198 provided for the exception of
the 180 days of accumulative time limit for the purpose of caring
for a terminally ill family member, and for the purpose of settling
the estate of a deceased family member. "Family members" were
defined as parent, spouse, sibling, child and stepchild. He called
it a tight definition. He explained he introduced this bill after
a constituent came to him who experienced a series of personal
illnesses that required care outside of Alaska combined with a
couple of situations where he and his wife provided hospice care
for other family members outside of Alaska. As a result, he was
denied the permanent fund dividend. Representative Elton stated
that was unreasonable. Moreover, at the request of Representative
James, the title was tightened and the effective date changed
resulting in the committee substitute (9-LS0745/C). He said he
would be available to answer any questions.
Number 0133
CHAIR JAMES stated an excuse for being outside of the state beyond
the 180 days currently allowed should be one that was beyond a
person's control. The two reasons proposed in CSHB 198(STA) (9-
LS0745/C) met that criteria.
Number 0147
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Representative Elton what was the
attitude of the Permanent Fund Division regarding the bill?
Number 0153
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON replied he did talk to the division to
determine the associated problems ("heartburn") and the cost
incurred. The division believed it would have a limited cost
effect, a $0 fiscal note was attached. The division also believed
it would not cause any problems or heartburn. Moreover, he
explained the bill did not cover all the situations that it should.
It would not cover, for example, a child that needed medical
attention outside the state, unless he died. A definition of the
term "illness" was needed before more exemptions were applied. The
term "terminally ill" was already defined. He said he tried to
broaden the bill to include other important family situations, and
suggested the committee might want to consider that.
Number 0225
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he would error on the side of being more
loose. It appeared the seriousness was primafacie if someone spent
that much time outside of Alaska in a hospital. He did not have a
problem including a serious illness as an exemption.
Number 0245
CHAIR JAMES said she agreed with Representative Porter.
Furthermore, she called this an Alaskan issue. It was not the
amount of the permanent fund dividend that was at issue here, it
was the idea of not being considered an "Alaskan," if one spent
more than 180 days outside of the state. She agreed the door
should be opened a little to allow protected exemptions in statute.
She further believed, it was more proper to put the exemptions into
law rather than regulations.
Number 0332
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON moved to adopt CSHB 198(STA) (9-LS0745/C)
for consideration. Hearing no objection, it was so adopted.
Number 0351
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON explained she was a cosponsor of the bill.
Therefore, she believed in the direction of the bill. She
announced she would be willing to work with Representative Elton
and others to include serious illnesses as well as terminal
illnesses. It many cases Alaskans needed to leave the state for
medical treatment to stay alive. She wondered if the bill could be
amended to take those situations into consideration.
Number 0414
CHAIR JAMES said she wanted to hear from the committee members
further before establishing a subcommittee.
Number 0440
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON suggested language that addressed acceptable
allowances for medical treatment outside of Alaska that were not
available in the state, for example.
Number 0457
CHAIR JAMES explained she asked Representative Elton to tighten to
title of CSHB 198(STA) (9-LS0745/C) to prevent the "christmas tree"
effect as it progressed through the system.
Number 0480
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN stated he appreciated the intent of CSHB
198(STA) (9-LS0745/C). He wondered about a terminally ill patient
that had to leave the state for several years. Many times doctors
could not determine the length of time necessary for treatment.
Number 0506
CHAIR JAMES replied that concern needed to be answered.
Number 0517
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said most would make an exception for the
terminally ill. He explained there was a distinction between an
individual that needed to leave the state for medical reasons and
an airline pilot, for example, that needed to leave the state
because of his job due to downsizing.
Number 0570
CHAIR JAMES reiterated it was not just the money. It was the fact
that a resident felt he was being "slapped in the face" for not
being an Alaskan.
Number 0598
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN suggested adding to the language Representative
Elton proposed to include "the intention to return to the state."
He cited an example of a friend that was diagnosed with a brain
tumor and moved to California to take advantage of the medicaid
program there. He wondered where the line should be drawn. He
reiterated there should be an intention to return to Alaska.
Number 0669
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said there were apparently two categories
involved - an Alaskan resident that had to go outside accompanied
by a resident for medical treatment, and an Alaskan resident that
had to go outside to attend to an out-of-state resident. It was
obvious the first category should apply as an exemption, but he was
not so sure about the second category.
Number 0718
CHAIR JAMES further added to the categories Representative Porter
mentioned to include a child accompanied by an adult who turned 18
while out of the state. She suggested forming a subcommittee to
work on the language further. She called on Representatives Porter
and Robinson to participate.
Number 0748
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS said he would assume that the subcommittee
would run the committee substitute by the division and the legal
department.
CHAIR JAMES replied, "of course." That was part of the process.
Number 0757
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said this discussion showed why he had decided
to open the door just a little.
CHAIR JAMES announced this was a good piece of legislation. She
would sign on as a cosponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON replied, "thank you Madame Chair."
CHAIR JAMES called on the first witness in Juneau, Nanci A. Jones,
Department of Revenue.
Number 0796
NANCI A. JONES, Director, Central Office, Permanent Fund Dividend
Division, Department of Revenue, said it was always interesting to
see how knowledgeable every one was with the program. She
appreciated the discussion today. She explained, currently, a
person could be allowably absent from the state if he was receiving
continuous medical treatment. "Continuous" was defined as a
minimum of a weekly visit to the doctor to avoid a person leaving
the state for a "medical vacation," in Arizona for example.
Furthermore, a person could accompany that person for medical
treatment as well. In the regulations, however, that person had to
be defined as disabled. The division was undergoing a regulation
re-write to define the term "disabled." Therefore, currently, a
person could accompany another person out of the state for more
than the 180 days. She called CSHB 198(STA) a noble idea.
However, the division was concerned about the christmas tree effect
that Chair James mentioned as it proceeded through the system. She
announced she was in the process of compiling statistics to show
how many people were paid that were actually outside of Alaska.
She passed to the committee members a handout titled, "1995
Dividend Payments to Eligible Applicants with Absences." A
disparity existed between the categories. She cited a person that
won a bid outside to work could not receive the dividend. The
division recognized the Peace Corp, but did not recognize any other
volunteer organizations. She said she could go on and on about the
disparities that existed and cautioned the committee it would face
that issue once it opened the door. She said she would like to
work with the subcommittee to produce an equitable and easily
administered piece of legislation. She voiced her concern
regarding the two year return provision and the five year
presumption provision. Those provisions backed-up the appeal
process because it was hard to determine a person's intent. She
was concerned this might occur with the two new provisions as well.
She explained HB 4 was in the House Finance Committee. The bill
separated the issue of state resident and allowable absences. She
reiterated it was hard to work with the disparities present in the
program. She reiterated CSHB 198(STA) was noble, but suggested
taking more time and looking further at the disparities in general.
Number 1159
CHAIR JAMES asked Ms. Jones how many of the allowable absences were
in statute and how many were in regulations?
Number 1179
MS. JONES replied AS 01.10.055 defined the allowable absences and
AS 43.23.095(8) defined "state resident." She suggested two
statutes to define a state resident and guidelines for allowable
absences.
CHAIR JAMES asked Ms. Jones if HB 4 addressed the state resident
issue.
MS. JONES replied, "yes." The bill addressed the separation of
those two definitions. The regulations further defined the
allowable absences according to the statutes.
Number 1247
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked Ms. Jones if more categories were
established under AS 01.10.055 (F), "other reasons which the
commissioner may establish by regulation; (OR)?"
MS. JONES replied, "no." The division, however, had expanded the
allowances for the two year return rule and the five year
presumption rule. She called subsection (F) a misnomer.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER replied he understood her concerns about
subsection (F), but the division did have the statutory authority
to do that.
MS. JONES stated the subsection was included for room to grow.
However, the division was very cautious about how it grew because
it could not allow for every exemption.
Number 1296
CHAIR JAMES shared a personal experience regarding the two year and
the five year presumption provisions of a family returning to
Alaska for only a few days to qualify for the dividend. It was a
lot of money for a large family.
CHAIR JAMES thanked Ms. Jones for her testimony today.
MS. JONES thanked the Chair and the committee members.
CHAIR JAMES announced she expected the subcommittee to report back
shortly to move the bill forward.
HJR 34 - LIMIT LEGISLATIVE SESSION TO 90 DAYS
The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Committee was HJR 34.
CHAIR JAMES called on Representative Jerry Sander, sponsor of HJR
34.
Number 1487
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY SANDERS said he would not read the sponsor
statement because everyone here could read. He announced his wife,
children and grandchildren really liked the resolution. He also
believed the Governor would like it too. He explained the 120 day
session had been in existence now for 10 years in Alaska. It had
worked well. However, it was time to look at the issue again and
consider reducing the session length to 90 days. He said it would
not present a problem due to the advancement of computers, for
example. It presented a significant savings of $1.5 million. He
called it a conservative amount, and felt it would be a
considerable amount more when the number of administrative
operations that were moving to Anchorage were considered. Those
members had to fly to Juneau for business of which the state paid
for the trip. He said HJR 34 would be popular in his district. He
also believed it would pass other districts as well. He said the
public perceived that the oil companies paid for this government.
He did not believe that, however, and the people would discover
that soon. He predicted that in one year after passing a state
income tax, the session would be reduced to 90 days anyway due to
the change in the public's perception. The resolution asked for
the people to vote on the issue. He asked the committee members to
take an honest look at the resolution.
Number 1729
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he supported the concept of HJR 34. The
resolution would send a clear message. He said if other states
could do it, Alaska could. He reiterated he strongly supported HJR
34.
Number 1782
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he felt the legislature could accomplish
what it did in 120 days in 90 days. The side effects would be less
bills and forced priorities. It would also create a tendency to
"hit the ground running." He said it would create better
government and better legislation. He supported the resolution.
Number 1856
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said she initially voted against the 120
day session, and was glad others did not agree with her because she
now believed it was good to have a time limit. She asked
Representative Sanders if he looked at other options available,
such as, one session being longer than another, for example?
Number 1910
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS replied, "yes." He would have written it
for 90 days one year and 60 days the other year. However, he also
believed in a one-step-at-a time approach. He suggested trying a
90 day session for a while before cutting one year to 60 days.
Number 1937
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked Representative Sanders where the 90
days came from?
Number 1955
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS replied the House of Representatives passed
a budget in 90 days which had always been a budget that the public
supported. However, after that 90 day period, there were an
additional 30 days "to go back and put all that money back in."
Therefore, the state would be in better shape if it were limited to
90 days.
Number 2004
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said she was tired of all the bills being
pushed through the legislature. Furthermore, each bill and fiscal
note had to be evaluated by a department. She also supported a two
year budget cycle because the departments had to cater to the
legislature for 120 days out of each year rather than conducting
state business. She asked Representative Sanders what the
extension provision was in the resolution?
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS replied it was the same. There was no
change to the extension provision.
Number 2135
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN explained the state of Texas only allowed
legislation to be introduced on the alternative years, allowing one
session to be dedicated to the budget. It was not fair to compare
other states to Alaska due to its short statehood. A step in that
direction was worthwhile, however.
Number 2226
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked Representative Green if Texas did an
annual budget?
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN replied, "yes." There were states, however,
that did biannual budgets.
Number 2243
CHAIR JAMES said she supported HJR 34. She was concerned about
comparing Alaska to other states, however, because Alaska did not
have a steady revenue source. Moreover, she was also concerned
about the number of bills introduced. She explained she was
criticized for not hearing some bills this session, but there was
only so much that the House State Affairs Committee could do, and
do it right. Furthermore, the rules would have to change. She
suggested that a bill could not pass unless it had been presented
in the previous session to prevent unintended consequences of the
political bickering. By presenting a piece of legislation one
year, the interim period could be used for discussion with the
public before action was taken. She said the legislators did not
hear from the public while in Juneau. "We hear from a few
dissenters and a few passionate supporters," a very small part of
the public.
TAPE 96-43, SIDE A
Number 0000
CHAIR JAMES reiterated the rules could be determined given a length
of time. The arguments against were just excuses.
Number 0044
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated most of the states that had restricted
time entertained public hearings throughout the session.
Furthermore, although those states had a shorter session, they had
a longer interim period. Moreover, most states were far more
austere towards their compensation of their legislators.
Number 0104
CHAIR JAMES said the legislature had made giant strides over the
past four years reducing the amount of money spent on the
legislature as-well-as the carry over amount. She announced Pam
Varni, Executive Director, Legislative Affairs Agency, was here to
answer any questions regarding the legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated the legislature at the same time
increased its per diem.
CHAIR JAMES responded everybody focused on the increased per diem
even though the legislature cut its staff and unrolled the carry
over amount.
Number 0182
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS said he was not sure how he would vote on HJR
34. He was concerned about how this would affect the balance of
power between he executive and legislative branches. The Alaskan
Governor was the strongest executive in the United States, and the
counter balance to the executive branch in the state was the
legislature. He felt the 120 day session was an excellent idea
when it was changed years ago. He cautioned the committee members
when considering shortening it even further to 90 days, however,
for fear of a tip in the balance of powers.
Number 0316
CHAIR JAMES explained regulations distressed the public. Based on
her analysis of the problem, the legislature was not willing to
take the time to include specifics in the bills creating more
regulations on the part of the Administration. Therefore, she
agreed with Representative Willis that the balance of powers needed
to be looked at further.
Number 0367
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER explained four years ago the legislature cut
79 positions. He felt the legislature never did receive full
credit for that so every time he had to opportunity to state that
he would. Furthermore, most of the business in other states was
done at the municipal and county levels compared to Alaska. There
was more money spent and issues addressed between King County and
the City of Seattle in the state of Washington than Olympia, for
example. Therefore, the Alaska State Legislature was in effect a
borough assembly county seat of government for a large percentage
of the area of Alaska addressing issues that other states would
not.
Number 0479
CHAIR JAMES announced HB 485 and HB 490 would not be heard today
due to time constraints. They would be rescheduled for Saturday,
March 30, 1996.
Number 0496
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said if the session was moved to Akiak, the
expenses would be reduced as much as possible. He cited the
diversity, the limited access, and the cultures of Alaska affected
the government and how a state was governed compared to any other
state. He was afraid to make a radical change right now.
Number 0575
CHAIR JAMES explained due to redistricting every 10 years, a
freshman legislature was almost inevitable. She said it was a
steep learning curve for her as a freshman four years ago and that
needed to also be considered when changing the system. She cited
it was hard to even find the bathrooms for that freshman class.
She complimented Representative Scott Ogan for his efforts as one
of only a few freshmen legislators last year.
Number 0642
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said she sympathized with other
Representatives that had businesses outside of their work as a
legislator. She believed in more interim types of work. She
stated the issue needed to be looked at further. The entire way of
doing business needed to be reconsidered. She did not think the
legislature could get through in 90 days as it currently operated.
She reiterated a more serious look was needed and provisions
included to incorporate those changes.
Number 717
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said, for the record, he found the bathroom
pretty fast when he arrived in Juneau as a freshman.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN moved that HJR 34 move from the committee with
individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. Chair James
objected. A roll call vote was not called for, however.
CHAIR JAMES announced HJR 34 would be scheduled again for Saturday,
March 30, 1996.
Number 0786
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIR JAMES adjourned the House State Affairs Committee meeting at
10:04 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|