Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/25/1997 08:07 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 25, 1997
8:07 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jeannette James, Chair
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
Representative Kim Elton
Representative Mark Hodgins
Representative Ivan Ivan
Representative Al Vezey
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Fred Dyson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
* HOUSE BILL NO. 200
"An Act relating to subpoenas of the Administrative Regulation
Review Committee; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 155
"An Act relating to hearings before and authorizing fees for the
State Commission for Human Rights; and providing for an effective
date."
- MOVED CSHB 155(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 78
"An Act relating to the definition of certain state receipts; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 83
"An Act relating to commercial motor vehicle inspections; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 83(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 143
"An Act relating to the art in public places requirements for
state-owned and state-leased buildings and facilities."
- HEARD AND HELD
* HOUSE BILL NO. 181
"An Act relating to separate segregated funds for certain political
contributions from corporations and labor organizations."
- HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 200
SHORT TITLE: SUBPOENA POWER: ADMIN. REG. REVIEW COMMIT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) JAMES
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/18/97 737 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/18/97 737 (H) STATE AFFAIRS
03/25/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 155
SHORT TITLE: HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION FEES & HEARINGS
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/24/97 443 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/24/97 443 (H) STATES AFFAIRS, HES, FINANCE
02/24/97 444 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (GOV)
02/24/97 444 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
03/11/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/11/97 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/13/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/13/97 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/20/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/10/97 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/22/97 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 78
SHORT TITLE: AMEND DEFINITION OF "PROGRAM RECEIPTS"
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/16/97 88 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/97 88 (H) STA, L&C, FINANCE
01/16/97 88 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (GOV\VARIOUS DEPTS)
01/16/97 88 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
03/11/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/11/97 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/13/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/13/97 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/20/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/20/97 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/22/97 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 83
SHORT TITLE: COMMERCIAL VEHICLE INSPECTIONS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MARTIN
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/22/97 122 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/22/97 122 (H) TRANSPORTATION, STATE AFFAIRS
02/03/97 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
02/03/97 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
02/10/97 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
02/12/97 306 (H) TRA RPT CS(TRA) NT 3DP 2NR
02/12/97 307 (H) DP: SANDERS, KOOKESH, MASEK
02/12/97 307 (H) NR: ELTON, COWDERY
02/12/97 307 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DPS)
03/11/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/11/97 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/13/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/13/97 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/15/97 (H) STA AT 11:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/15/97 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/22/97 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 143
SHORT TITLE: REPEAL ART IN PUBLIC PLACES REQUIREMENT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) VEZEY, Hodgins
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/17/97 374 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/17/97 375 (H) STATE AFFAIRS
03/20/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/20/97 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/22/97 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/25/97 841 (H) COSPONSOR(S): HODGINS
BILL: HB 181
SHORT TITLE: SEPARATE SEGREGATED FUNDS: POLIT. CONTRIB
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) VEZEY
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/07/97 583 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/07/97 584 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY
03/25/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
SARAH FELIX, 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 in opposition to HB 200.
PAULA HALEY, Executive Director
Alaska State Commission for Human Rights
800 "A" Street, Suite 204
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-3669
Telephone: (907) 274-4692
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HB 155.
JAMES BALDWIN, 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 78.
MIKE GREANY, Legislative Fiscal Analyst
Legislative Finance Division
Legislative Agencies and Offices
P.O. Box 113200
Juneau, Alaska 99811-3200
Telephone: (907) 465-3795
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 78.
MIKE FORD, Attorney
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
130 Seward Street, Suite 409
Juneau, Alaska 99801-2105
Telephone: (907) 465-2450
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 83.
FRANK DILLON, Executive Director
Alaska Trucking Association
3443 Minnesota Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Telephone: (907) 276-1149
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HB 83.
CAROLYN ROSEBERY
Address not provided
Cordova, Alaska 66574
Telephone: (907) 424-7355
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 143.
BARBARA SHORT, Art Teacher
Fairbanks North Star Borough School District
520 5th Avenue
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Telephone: (907) 452-2000 ext. 417
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 143.
JUNE ROGERS
P.O. Box 72786
Fairbanks, Alaska 99707
Telephone: (907) 456-6485
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 143.
BROOK MILES, Regulation of Lobbying
Alaska Public Offices Commission
Department of Administration
P.O. Box 110222
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0222
Telephone: (907) 465-4864
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 181.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-33, SIDE A
Number 0001
The House State Affairs Standing Committee was called to order by
Chair Jeannette James at 8:07 a.m. Members present at the call to
order were Representatives James, Elton, Hodgins, Ivan and Vezey.
Representative Berkowitz arrived at 8:08 a.m.
HB 200 - SUBPOENA POWER: ADMIN. REG. REVIEW COMMIT
The first order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Standing Committee was HB 200, "An Act relating to subpoenas of the
Administrative Regulation Review Committee; and providing for an
effective date."
CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES, sponsor of HB 200, presented the bill.
CHAIR JAMES asked that the committee members delete from the
sponsor statement the sentence, "Every other similar Legislative
Council Committee has the power to force witnesses to testify." It
was not a correct statement; there were several other committees
that did not have the power as well.
CHAIR JAMES read the following sponsor statement into the record:
"HB 200 gives the Committee the power to subpoena unwilling and/or
uncooperative witnesses to Committee hearings. If the Committee
intends to sort fact from fiction we need the tool of subpoena
power.
"We are not a democracy as is claimed, we are a regulatory
bureaucracy! `We are from the government, and we are here to help
you.' That statement brings chills to our constituents because the
statement that follows will be one dealing with regulations. The
Committee is charged with the task of regulatory oversight, the
basic idea is to re-establish a democracy equally balanced between
the Executive, Legislative and the Judicial branches of government.
"There is no oversight of regulations by the Executive branch,
former administrations have tried, but have been unsuccessful. It
is up to us, the Legislative branch to be the overviewer of the
regulations promulgated by the Statutes we make.
"The Committee needs certain tools to operate, we have the
statutory power to place witnesses under oath, the power to file
perjury charges, the power to require cooperation from public
officials, and the power to annul regulations through statute.
"With the power of subpoena our tool kit will be complete.
"If there are any questions please call me, or Walt Wilcox."
Number 0239
REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON asked Chair James whether there had been
any need so far to subpoena a person.
Number 0256
CHAIR JAMES replied, "No." However, some had not responded to the
requests. The committee had not been going for very long either.
Number 0304
SARAH FELIX, Assistant Attorney General, Governmental Affairs
Section, Civil Division, Department of Law, was the first person to
testify in Juneau. The division was concerned mainly with the
provision of AS 24.20.455 (c) on page 2 - the enforcement of
subpoena by arrest. In the past, a similar procedure was used and
challenged in the 1985 Schultz v. Sundberg court case.
Representative Sundberg claimed a violation of civil rights by
arrest and sued the state, as well as a number of individuals,
under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. One case went all the way to the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals. Therefore, the division was concerned
about the possibility of costly litigation.
MS. FELIX further explained the division was concerned about the
practical problems that could result in the enforcement upon the
arrest. The division imagined that the Sergeant At Arms would need
help with the arrest provision. The sergeant would also probably
ask the troopers to enforce the arrest. The troopers would not
have the immunity that the legislative staff would have relying on
the qualified executive branch immunity. The troopers would also
probably want a court order before arresting someone. The next
agency involved would probably be Corrections, which would also
probably want an order before locking someone up.
MS. FELIX suggested deleting Section 24.20.455 (c) and inserting
the following language:
"hold public hearings, administer oaths, issue subpoenas, compel
the attendance of witnesses and production of papers, books,
accounts, documents, and testimony, and have the deposition of
witnesses taken in a manner prescribed by court rule or law for
taking dispositions in civil action;"
MS. FELIX explained the Legislative Council and the Legislative
Budget and Audit committees had the same provisions.
Number 0575
REPRESENTATIVE MARK HODGINS asked Ms. Felix how the Office of the
Attorney General or the courts did it when they had a subpoena.
Was it similar to the provision she suggested adding?
Number 0604
MS. FELIX replied that a subpoena was enforced by the court's
contempt power. A person would be held in contempt, with the
opportunity to explain to the court why he or she disobeyed the
subpoena. The court ruled based on the excuse.
Number 0632
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Ms. Felix what the difference was
between AS 24.20.455 (c) and the provision that she suggested
adding.
Number 0644
MS. FELIX replied that AS 24.20.455 (c) provided for a summary
arrest, while the other provision provided for an opportunity to be
heard before the person was arrested and taken to prison.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Ms. Felix whether it would still have
the same compelling power.
MS. FELIX replied, "Yes." There were a number of agencies that
issued an administrative subpoena. It was not to be taken lightly.
Number 0702
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Ms. Felix what would be the
consequences if someone disregarded the provision that she
suggested adding.
MS. FELIX replied that a consequence would be the penalties for
contempt, such as jail time until the order was obeyed.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Ms. Felix whether the process would be
at the discretion of the committee.
MS. FELIX replied it would be at the discretion of the judge and
the judicial system.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Ms. Felix what type of time sequence
it would take from finding contempt to compelling the person to
talk before the committee, for example.
Number 0728
MS. FELIX replied that she did not know the time line. It would
depend on the court and its case load. She would hope that the
court would take the short session of the legislature into
consideration.
Number 0762
REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY asked Ms. Felix what the outcome of the
Schultz v. Sundberg court case was.
MS. FELIX replied that the state got off. The state was found to
not be liable. The legislators received immunity, and the
executive branch employees received qualified immunity.
Number 0790
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Ms. Felix whether the legislature had
the authority to issue a subpoena.
Number 0797
MS. FELIX replied, "I think so." She reiterated that the division
was not disputing the subpoena but rather the summary of arrest.
Number 0863
REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ asked Ms. Felix whether the
provision she suggested would keep the subpoena within the due
process provisions.
MS. FELIX replied, "Yes." The provision would not allow for
summarily arresting a person without giving him or her a notice and
an opportunity to be heard, shielding the legislature from the
constitutional claims as in the Schultz v. Sundberg case.
Number 0886
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ further stated, to answer the earlier
question of Representative Hodgins, that when someone was arrested,
he or she had to be brought before a judge or a magistrate within
a very short period of time. Generally, that type of proceeding
moved quickly.
Number 0908
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Ms. Felix whether she knew what the
cost would be associated with the provision she suggested.
Number 0915
MS. FELIX replied, "I do not." She suggested getting that type of
information from the troopers, for example.
Number 0941
CHAIR JAMES said she hoped there would not be any cost associated
and that once given the subpoena power, it would probably not have
to be used. As Chairman of the House State Affairs Standing
Committee, she could move the case over to that committee, where
she did have subpoena power. She believed, however, that the
Administrative Regulation Review Joint Committee should have the
same power.
Number 0985
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ explained that he had issued thousands of
subpoenas, and he had wished that the people had paid attention to
them, but they generally did not. There were times when the weight
of the law was necessary.
Number 1003
CHAIR JAMES replied that when he gave a subpoena, it was under a
different type of case law than in the legislature. The committee
would not subpoena anybody outside of the government. If anybody
in the government would refuse, then there would probably be more
problems than just refusing the subpoena.
Number 1029
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ replied that the subpoena power did not
apply to federal employees.
CHAIR JAMES said the committee completely worked within the
framework of regulations written by the Administration. Therefore,
the subpoena would be against those that had information or
documents relating to regulations - the Administration. She did
not think the Administration would deny a subpoena.
Number 1084
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated that there was nothing that limited the
subpoena power. He imagined that a person subject to regulations,
for example, would need to be subpoenaed.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked Chair James whether the subpoena power
that she had was similar to the subpoena power in AS 24.20.201
(a)(2).
CHAIR JAMES replied that she did not know. It was the opinion of
the leadership that the committee already had the subpoena power.
Therefore, the committee chair did not just have the power; he or
she needed higher authority as well.
Number 1169
MS. FELIX replied that AS 24.25.010 referred to the chairman of a
committee when authorized to do so by a majority of the membership
of the committee and with the concurrence of the president or the
speaker, or with the concurrence of the House or the Senate. The
Legislative Council Committee had the same type of subpoena power
as in AS 24.20.201 (a)(2).
Number 1201
CHAIR JAMES stated that she did not have any objection to the
suggestion made by Ms. Felix. However, she wanted to discuss it
with the drafter.
Number 1214
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Ms. Felix whether she envisioned
that judicial services would be serving the subpoenas.
MS. FELIX said probably. The legislature would probably need some
sort of assistance to serve the subpoenas. It needed to be looked
at further, however.
Number 1267
CHAIR JAMES announced she would take the suggestions of Ms. Felix
to the drafter. The bill would be held over until Thursday, March
27, 1997.
HB 155 - HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION FEES & HEARINGS
The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Standing Committee was HB 155, "An Act relating to hearings before
and authorizing fees for the State Commission for Human Rights; and
providing for an effective date."
Number 1312
CHAIR JAMES explained there was a committee substitute (0-GH0045\E,
Lauterbach, 3/22/97). It added the word "educational" to line 13,
page 1.
Number 1328
PAULA HALEY, Executive Director, Alaska State Commission for Human
Rights, was the first person to testify via teleconference in
Anchorage. She did not have a copy of the committee substitute in
front of her. She was able to get letters to all of the committee
members answering some of their questions. In the letters, she
included the fact that the commission would not be opposed to
reinserting the words "education" and "training" in front of the
word "services," in AS 18.80.060(b)(4). She asked Chair James
whether that was what the committee substituted proposed.
Number 1358
CHAIR JAMES replied that the committee substitute only added the
word "educational". She believed the word "educational" also
included the meaning of training.
MS. HALEY said she agreed.
Number 1405
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (0-GH0045\E, Lauterbach, 3/22/97) as a working document.
There was no objection; the committee substitute was so adopted.
Number 1425
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY moved that HB 155, as amended, move from the
committee with individual recommendations and the attached zero
fiscal note(s). There was no objection; CSHB 155(STA) moved from
the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 78 - AMEND DEFINITION OF "PROGRAM RECEIPTS"
The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Standing Committee was HB 78, "An Act relating to the definition of
certain state receipts; and providing for an effective date."
Number 1550
JAMES BALDWIN, Assistant Attorney General, Governmental Affairs
Section, Civil Division, Department of Law, was the first person to
testify in Juneau. The purpose of the bill was to establish in the
budget the program receipts as their own funding sources to provide
an incentive for agencies to engage in revenue generating
activities that would finance state governmental operations. The
funding sources would not be considered a part of the unrestricted
general fund. The idea was to emphasize that these activities
would receive more favorable budget treatment. Mr. Baldwin cited
an example whereby the Department of Law discovered that processing
judgments was beneficial to the department.
MR. BALDWIN further explained there were allegations that the bill
could create a dedicated fund. However, the statutes addressed in
the bill made it very clear that the money would not be dedicated.
In other words, the power of the legislature was not restricted to
appropriating the money to the purpose designated in law. That was
why they were referred to as "designated program receipts". The
statute generally indicated that the legislature "may" appropriate
the money. It was not required by law; it was a statement of
intent by the legislature which almost always was honored. Mr.
Baldwin cited the Marine Highway Fund as an example. The bill,
therefore, would have the effect of a separate funding source in
the budget. It also recognized another type of funding source -
corporate receipts. The bill also provided for the receipts of
test marketing programs such as the fisheries.
Number 1773
CHAIR JAMES stated her biggest concern was that these programs
were, currently, kept separate. She was also concerned about the
practice of companies paying a large amount of money to speed up
the permitting process, as well as the Governor's concept of "open
for business". In addition, she wondered who should pay the
government to provide services - the big companies?
TAPE 97-33, SIDE B
Number 0001
CHAIR JAMES asked who would take care of the little guy who could
not afford to speed up the permitting process. She wondered why
the collection of the judgments was not already being done, because
it was the job of the department. She asked: Why would it only
consider doing the job if the money stayed in the department? She
said this was an attitude about government that she did not want to
go towards.
Number 0034
MR. BALDWIN replied that the department was largely funded by the
general fund; when there was a budget cut, it was the area that
received the most scrutiny, requiring a shift of resources to areas
of the greatest need. There were also areas that generated
revenues but were not very glamorous. Therefore, by having that
revenue source available, the department could devote resources
away from the other general fund activities.
MR. BALDWIN further stated that there was a statute that said the
department could not charge the public for the provision of a
normal government service unless authorized by law. Therefore, the
control rested with the legislature. The bill would not change
that either. The bill controlled the development of the program
receipts as a funding source for activities that were sustaining
and providing revenue for the state treasury. Program receipts
should not be held to the same standards as other unrestricted
general fund activities that were viewed differently by the
legislature.
Number 0165
CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Baldwin whether it would be possible for the
Department of Law to ask for authorization from the legislature for
the collection of the judgments.
Number 0186
MR. BALDWIN replied that the request would convert general fund
money into contractual money.
Number 0195
CHAIR JAMES replied that the program receipts were still general
funds.
Number 0207
MR. BALDWIN replied that general funds were what the legislature
said they were. They were decided and defined by law. He said we
did not want to create a designation of the money by law, taking
away the power of the legislature. He cited the court case of
Salmon v. Hickel that validated the approach.
Number 0267
MIKE GREANY, Legislative Fiscal Analyst, Legislative Finance
Division, Legislative Agencies and Offices, was the next person to
testify in Juneau.
Number 0277
CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Greany why the bill was needed and what the
benefits were.
Number 0283
MR. GREANY replied that from a budgetary standpoint, it was a
policy call that the legislature would have to make. It was a
question of how budget sources should be characterized in the
budget. When the Legislative Finance Division created a general
appropriation bill, it contained three columns: general funds,
other funds and total funds. House Bill 78 allowed for the funds
from the program receipts now in the general funds to be moved into
the "other funds" column. The funds would not be counted as state
funds or as caps.
MR. GREANY further stated that the framers of the constitution
intended that all of the fees and taxes would be on the table for
the legislature to appropriate as it saw fit. At statehood, there
were approximately two dozen different funding sources. Now, there
are 70, and each fund had a good reason for being created. The
constitutional budget reserve issue was a wake-up call because it
forced the sorting of the funds available.
MR. GREANY said he was not arguing against the bill. He saw good
reasons for it. It was a way of keeping certain program receipts
out of the budgetary discussions. The Marine Highway Fund, for
example, was swept at the end of each fiscal year to meet the
Constitutional Budget Reserve (CBR) repayment provisions. There
was also the provision to restore the funds back into the program.
It was a good business practice as many private sector businesses
practiced.
Number 0746
CHAIR JAMES replied that this was not a private business; this was
government. She asked Mr. Greany whether there were three columns
in the budget currently.
MR. GREANY replied that for appropriation purposes, there were only
"general funds" and "other funds" that were broken down further.
For example, there were the pure general fund, the general fund
match, and the general fund program receipts that were broken down
even further. The Administration about two years ago took the
general fund program receipts and carved out the designated
portion. Right now, the designated program receipts were still
part of the general fund. The bill would take the designated
general fund program receipts and point to other funds.
Number 0852
CHAIR JAMES stated that the legislature was cutting the budget
based on the general fund, with which she did not agree. She asked
Mr. Greany how the bill would affect the bottom line of the budget.
Number 0924
MR. GREANY replied that it would depend on how the legislature
chose to view the budget. Some believed that every fund type
should be scrutinized, even federal funds. The biggest scrutiny
had been over the general funds. However, more were now looking at
the total budget. Therefore, by identifying different funding
sources, they could be tracked separately.
Number 1031
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated that the letter from the Governor dated
January 16, 1997, asserted that the bill would not sacrifice fiscal
information or legislative prerogative. The testimony of Mr.
Greany almost indicated that the bill would preclude legislative
prerogative on how the program receipts could be spent.
Number 1064
MR. GREANY replied that that was not his intent. It was a matter
of how the funds would be tracked and where they would appear in
the appropriation bill.
Number 1089
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked Mr. Greany, whether the receipts from a
test fishery would be identified as a program receipt, then
appropriated through the appropriation process.
MR. GREANY said yes, it could be appropriated for any other
purpose.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked Mr. Greany: If the bill provided for a
way to show that if the receipts were cut, did it not affect the
budget gap? In addition, the bill would provide a way of showing
that money did not need to be cut in another area to make up for
the growth of receipts.
Number 1189
MR. GREANY replied that it depended on how the fiscal gap was
defined. Was it defined in terms of general funds or in terms of
the entire state budget? The fiscal gap up to this point was
looked at in terms of the general fund only. The bill would take
the designated program receipts out of the fiscal gap.
Number 1313
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated that any governmental service had to
meet a market test from those that paid for the service, unlike a
general fund revenue. If a segment of the economy was willing to
pay for a service, it met the market test. Therefore, if a receipt
was taken away, it would hurt the people willing to pay for it. He
described general fund dollars as those that were coming through
the tax receipts.
Number 1381
MR. GREANY replied that that was the philosophy that the dedicated
fund states operated under. Oregon's highway dedicated fund was
established to fund its Department of Transportation. The
constitutional framers rejected that type of model, however, for
Alaska. In addition, Mr. Greany wondered whether the money from
the motor vehicle services was a user fee or a tax, for example.
Therefore, should it be used as a dedicated fund or as a general
fund? It had been characterized as a general fund, but it was
special because it had a program receipt designation. The division
took in more money than it spent, and the rest went into the
general fund.
Number 1553
CHAIR JAMES announced she would hold the bill in the committee to
think about it further.
HB 83 - COMMERCIAL VEHICLE INSPECTIONS
The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Standing Committee was HB 83, "An Act relating to commercial motor
vehicle inspections; and providing for an effective date."
Number 1586
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY explained the committee members had before
them a committee substitute (0-LS0384/P, Ford, 3/24/97). The first
major change was a result of Executive Order 98. The bill now
addressed Title 19 instead of Title 28.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY explained that Section 3 adopted 49 C.F.R. 396
and the provisions that existed on October 31, 1996. It also
clarified the terms "interstate" and "intrastate" to mean the same
thing.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY explained that Section 4 removed a criminal
penalty and inserted a civil penalty with a fine of $20,000. It
did not take away the ability of the troopers to charge a criminal
penalty for endangering the life of another person, however.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY explained that Section 5 increased the penalty
from $300 to $500 for a safety violation.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY explained that Section 6 provided for an
affirmative defense to prosecution under federal law because
federal law changed faster than state law creating a conflict.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY explained that Section 7 defined the term
"commercial motor vehicle" so that it was synonymous with the
federal law.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY explained that Section 8 repealed existing
statutes.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY explained that Section 9 gave a July 1, 1997,
effective date.
Number 1804
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Representative Vezey whether Section
4 also encompassed AS 19.10.365 in Section 5.
Number 1833
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied that the civil penalty would not
require due process.
TAPE 97-34, SIDE A
Number 0010
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that there was a new law that
indicated anything over a $250 fine could entitle a person to a
jury trial.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied that he was aware of what
Representative Berkowitz was talking about. There was ample
evidence in state law where $500 was a reasonable ceiling, however.
The law said a "maximum" of $500. Not all violations would be
$500. Typically, the schedule ranged from $50 to $300. The
statute needed to be rewritten; therefore, the maximum penalty was
raised.
Number 0116
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated Section 4 addressed AS 19.10.310
through AS 19.10.399, and Section 5 addressed AS 19.10.365. There
appeared to be a conflict.
Number 0180
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied that AS 19.10.310 through AS 19.10.399
covered a broader area than AS 19.10.365. If a person was guilty
of a leaky air line, for example, the authorities would not try to
prosecute under Section 4. In addition, Section 5 addressed a list
of specific mechanical items that had to be working to operate the
vehicle legally, whereas Section 4 addressed the failure to
implement a safety inspection program.
CHAIR JAMES called on Mike Ford, drafter of the bill, to answer
some of the questions.
Number 0281
MIKE FORD, Attorney, Legislative Legal and Research Services,
Legislative Affairs Agency, testified that the conflict was on line
22, page 2, "and except as provided in (b) of this section, a".
There was also an existing misdemeanor penalty in AS 19.45.002.
There were no conflicts.
Number 0336
FRANK DILLON, Executive Director, Alaska Trucking Association,
testified via teleconference from Anchorage. The industry
supported the revisions to the bill discussed by Representative
Vezey, and they would appreciate action taken on the bill.
Number 0370
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Representative Vezey whether
Sergeant Brown signed off on the revisions to the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied, "Yes."
Number 0412
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY moved that the committee substitute (0-
LS0384/P, Ford, 3/24/97) be adopted. There was no objection; the
committee substitute was so adopted.
Number 0462
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY moved that HB 84, as amended, move from the
committee with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal
note(s). There was no objection; CSHB 84(STA) was so moved from
the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 143 - REPEAL ART IN PUBLIC PLACES REQUIREMENT
The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Standing Committee was HB 143, "An Act relating to the art in
public places requirements for state-owned and state-leased
buildings and facilities."
Number 0556
CHAIR JAMES announced that she had closed the public testimony.
However, because there were only four people that wanted to testify
today, she would open it up again. She called upon Shannon
Planchon, Grant Administrator, Alaska State Council on the Arts, to
testify via teleconference from Anchorage; however, Ms. Planchon
said she was there to answer questions only.
Number 0668
CAROLYN ROSEBERY testified via teleconference from Cordova. Her
life had been incredibly enriched by the art that she had found.
It had taken her 41 years to find that art. In Cordova, she had
been exposed to art in the schools and began to discover her own
gift and abilities. "I think I might be dead now if I hadn't
discovered those gifts," she said. Her daughter was a National
Merit Scholar and had chosen to become an artist; she was
graduating this year from the University of Alaska Fairbanks with
a degree in art. There would never be enough art in the world
because it came from one's spirit as a human being. She asked: Do
we have to start over to reinvent the wheel? There were many
talented kids in Cordova, and the community had nothing to work
with. There was no support; people were afraid of art because it
brought out the real self.
Number 0929
BARBARA SHORT, Art Teacher, Fairbanks North Star Borough School
District, testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. She was
also the percent-for-art program person in the schools. She said
they now had 20 schools that had wonderful art installed that was
being enjoyed on a daily basis by a large number of student,
teachers, parents and community members. The impact of the
percent-for-art in the community had been really strong. Every
year there was a bill opposing the percent-for-art program and
every year the school district drew up a resolution to oppose the
bill. The resolution was not done yet; therefore, she read a
resolution from 1995 to the committee members.
MS. SHORT asked Representative Vezey why he wanted to eliminate the
percent-for-art program, when schools in his area were just now
getting a change to get at it. And how did his bill benefit
anybody in the state?
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY, sponsor, replied that the bill was not about
funding art. He was the only member of the Alaska State
Legislature that had actually worked on a direct appropriation for
art. The bill was about a formula program that drove state
spending, reducing the accountability and responsibility of the
legislature. It was not about supporting the arts.
Number 1135
JUNE ROGERS was the next person to testify via teleconference in
Fairbanks. Last week she sent several messages to the legislators
on HB 143. In her previous comments, she'd referred to a Request
for Proposals (RFP) for the Crawford School on Eielson Air Force
Base. The art requested and commemorated the person for whom the
building was dedicated. This type of commemoration was positive
because it was based on respect for the school, the achievers, and
the leaders. Art in public buildings was a subtle and powerful
tool. Time and time again, studies had shown that young people who
had the opportunity to be schooled in the arts were capable of more
concentrated thoughts, were more creative in problem solving, and
had a better understanding of other studies. In addition, art in
public buildings was an investment that utilized the state's
resources, its raw materials and the talents of its people.
MS. ROGERS said the resulting product became part of the
infrastructure that helped the visitors understand the culture of
Alaska. The value of the program became more evident with each
passing year. Alaskans and "Fairbankians" were proud people and
eager to show the world who they are, who they were, and who they
stood for, which the art reflected. In addition, the 1-percent-
for-art projects constituted an "open museum" because they were
accessible to all of the community members. This approach was less
costly to administer than a full-scale facility necessary to house
a museum or gallery. At one time, libraries were not thought to be
necessary for the populace. And now it was hard to find a
community that did not have a public library.
MS. ROGERS said visual art is as necessary and as valuable to our
culture, and should be just as available, as books in a library.
There is no better way to realize the value of the state's dollar
than by investing it in projects that touch all walks of life,
chronicle an era, promote understanding of a culture, advance
education, enhance the beauty and help attract tourists. The 1-
percent-for-art program is a premium investment with a high rate of
return.
Number 1313
CHAIR JAMES thanked Ms. Rogers for her presentation that was sent
to her on the art in the Crawford Elementary School.
CHAIR JAMES announced the public testimony was closed. She said
the bill would be held in the committee.
HB 181 - SEPARATE SEGREGATED FUNDS: POLIT. CONTRIB
The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Standing Committee was HB 181, "An Act relating to separate
segregated funds for certain political contributions from
corporations and labor organizations."
Number 1356
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY, sponsor, explained that it was just ruled in
the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Michigan AFL-CIO v. Miller
that it was a constitutional right of a legislature to impose this
type of bill. The subject of the bill was financing political
activities without the consent of the person contributing the
money. The bill addressed Title 15.13 and set it up so that
political contributions had to be made out of segregated funds that
were voluntarily contributed. He reiterated that the wording had
been presented before the court and had been upheld.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Chair James whether there would be
more testimony.
CHAIR JAMES indicated there would be if somebody wanted to testify.
Number 1454
BROOK MILES, Regulation of Lobbying, Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC), Department of Administration, was the first
person to testify in Juneau. The APOC did not object to the
concept of the bill, but it did have some concerns over the current
legislative measure.
MS. MILES explained that the APOC was concerned that the reader
would misinterpret the prohibitions in Section 1 to Section 4, and
she suggested deleting the sections entirely.
MS. MILES explained that the APOC recommended the following
language in AS 15.13.160: "Separate segregated funds cannot
contribute to candidates or groups that are not parties or ballot
measure groups."
Number 1595
CHAIR JAMES asked Representative Vezey whether the separate
segregated fund was made by voluntary donations and gave the
authority for the money to go into a segregated fund, or whether it
was the segregated fund that made the donations.
Number 1651
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he'd have to go back and check the court
definition that the bill was following. The funds were not from
groups. They were not voluntary donations. They were used for
political purposes.
CHAIR JAMES asked Representative Vezey to define the funds a little
bit more.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he'd have to do more research to
determine what the courts were defining as a segregated fund. The
bill required a separation of funds, and if the funds were going to
be used for political contributions, then they would have to be
voluntary contributions.
Number 1741
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Representative Vezey whether the
term was defined in the Michigan court case.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied, "Yes."
Number 1753
CHAIR JAMES stated that she understood the intent of the piece of
legislation. She wondered, however, whether the money that went
into the segregated fund was voluntary and whether the money that
wasn't voluntarily contributed went someplace else.
Number 1885
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied that Section 6 defined a separate
segregated fund as monies collected that were not voluntarily
contributed - corporate or union proceeds, for example. The funds
could be contributed to activities related to politics, but they
could not be contributed to a candidate or to a ballot proposition.
Number 1946
CHAIR JAMES replied that campaign finance reform last year allowed
for only individuals to contribute to groups. She wondered,
therefore, whether a mandatory deduction could go to a group and
then the group could contribute. In addition, the money that went
to the group had to be voluntarily, and not mandatorily,
contributed.
Number 1977
MS. MILES replied that the bill required that the funds be
voluntary contributions.
MS. MILES said the APOC was also concerned that there was not a
specific definition of a separate segregated fund. The APOC
recommended the following language in AS 15.13.400: "The separate
segregated fund means two or more individuals who affirmatively and
voluntarily consent to make campaign contributions jointly through
a payroll deduction plan, administered and controlled by a union,
profit, or non-profit corporation of which the individuals are
members, officer, stock holders, or employees".
Number 2026
CHAIR JAMES said the suggested language by the APOC indicated that
an individual could not contribute to candidates or groups that
were not parties or ballot measure groups, but they could
contribute to parties or ballot measure groups.
MS. MILES replied, "Right."
CHAIR JAMES said she thought they could not contribute at all if
they were segregated funds. She thought the segregated funds were
for those that did not voluntarily contribute funds. The suggested
language indicated that a voluntary contribution could go towards
parties or ballot measure groups. The segregated fund contained
the "voluntary" and not the "involuntary" funds.
MS. MILES replied, "Correct."
CHAIR JAMES asked Representative Vezey what happened to the
involuntary funds.
Number 2080
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied that under AS 15.13, we recused those
from political activities last year.
Number 2092
MS. MILES replied that those would still be considered
contributions from individuals to a group. In other words, they
would be political action committee (PAC) accounts.
Number 2134
CHAIR JAMES said that was the problem. "I don't think we've solved
the problem here," she added.
MS. MILES said those were still individuals contributing to a
group.
CHAIR JAMES announced the bill needed to be worked on. "I don't
think it does what you think it does," she said.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied, "I believe it does do what I think it
does." He said he'd bring more information to the committee
members because he did not know the definition of separate
segregated funds. The definition was from the Sixth Circuit Court
of Appeals. It was well defined; the APOC simply did not agree
with the legal drafter.
CHAIR JAMES replied that they did not agree because it was not
perfectly clear. She needed to study the bill further. She agreed
with the concept that money which would go to a group that
contributed to a candidate or party should not be taken
involuntarily from individuals. The contributors needed to know
where their money went, and if they weren't in favor of where it
went, then it shouldn't be mandated. It was hard to believe that
anybody would disagree with that premise.
CHAIR JAMES announced the bill would be held in the committee
today.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 2210
CHAIR JAMES adjourned the House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting at 9:50 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|