01/20/1998 08:16 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
January 20, 1998
8:16 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jeannette James, Chair
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
Representative Fred Dyson
Representative Kim Elton
Representative Mark Hodgins
Representative Ivan Ivan
Representative Al Vezey
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
* HOUSE BILL NO. 309
"An Act naming the Robert B. Atwood Building."
- MOVED HB 309 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 264
"An Act providing for a negotiated regulation making process; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 264(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 5
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to freedom of conscience.
- HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 309
SHORT TITLE: NAMING ATWOOD BLDG IN ANCHORAGE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) COWDERY
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/12/98 2025 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/12/98 2025 (H) STATE AFFAIRS
01/20/98 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 264
SHORT TITLE: NEGOTIATED REGULATION MAKING
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) JAMES, Berkowitz, Cowdery, Kemplen
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
04/25/97 1343 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/25/97 1343 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE
04/26/97 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/26/97 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/28/97 1383 (H) COSPONSOR(S): BERKOWITZ
04/30/97 1427 (H) COSPONSOR(S): COWDERY, KEMPLEN
05/06/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
05/06/97 (H) MINUTE(STA)
05/08/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
05/08/97 (H) MINUTE(STA)
01/15/98 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
01/15/98 (H) MINUTE(STA)
01/20/98 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HJR 5
SHORT TITLE: CONSTIT AMNDMNT: FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MARTIN
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/13/97 22 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/3/97
01/13/97 22 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/13/97 23 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
02/25/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/25/97 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/27/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/27/97 (H) MINUTE(STA)
01/20/98 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COWDERY
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 416
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3879
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 309.
LEW WILLIAMS, JR.
755 Grant Street
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-5431
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 309.
KATIE HURLEY
P.O. Box 870157
Wasilla, Alaska 99687
Telephone: (907) 376-5736
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 309.
KEITH GERKEN, Architect
Division of General Services
Department of Administration
P.O. Box 110210
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0210
Telephone: (097) 465-2250
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 309.
WILLIAM TOBIN, Editor
The Voice of The Times
2130 Lord Baranof Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99517
Telephone: (907) 248-3265
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 309.
FULLER COWELL, Publisher
Anchorage Daily News
18536 Osprey Circle
Anchorage, Alaska 99516
Telephone: (907) 345-7079
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support HB 309.
GLORIA ALLEN, Music Teacher;
Theater Producer; Arts Activist
2625 Kelsan Circle
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
Telephone: (907) 277-5844
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support HB 309.
VIC FISCHER,
P.O. Box 201348
Anchorage, Alaska 99520
Telephone: (907) 276-7626
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 309.
LEE GORSUCH, Chancellor
University of Alaska, Anchorage
5247 East 147th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99516
Telephone: (907) 345-6065
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of himself in support of
HB 309.
WALTER WILCOX, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Jeannette James
Alaska State Legislature
130 Seward Street, Suite 222
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-6819
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 264.
DOUGLAS K. MERTZ
Prince William Sound Regional
Citizens Advisory Council
319 Seward Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-4004
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided suggested amendments to HB 264.
DEBORAH BEHR, Assistant Attorney General
Legislation and Regulations Section
Office of the Attorney General
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Telephone: (907) 465-3600
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on the
proposed CS for HB 264.
KIRSTEN SHELTON, Lobbyist
Alaska Conservation Voice
P.O. Box 22151
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Telephone: (907) 463-3366
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CS for HB 264,
provided suggested amendments.
REPRESENTATIVE TERRY MARTIN
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 502
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3783
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HJR 5.
PATRICK DALTON
P.O. Box 1413
Delta Junction, Alaska 99737
Telephone: (Not provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 5.
KENNETH JACOBUS
425 "G" Street, Suite 920
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 227-3333
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 5, provided suggested
amendments.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 98-2, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:16 a.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives James, Berkowitz, Dyson, Elton,
and Ivan. Representatives Hodgins and Vezey joined the meeting at
8:45 a.m.
HB 309 - NAMING ATWOOD BLDG IN ANCHORAGE
Number 0040
CHAIR JAMES announced the committee would be addressing HB 309, "An
Act naming the Robert B. Atwood Building," sponsored by
Representative Cowdery.
Number 0050
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COWDERY came forward to present the following
sponsor statement:
"HB 309 allows the state's recently acquired Bank of America
Building in Anchorage to be renamed in the honor of one of Alaska's
great leaders, Robert B. Atwood.
"Bob Atwood lived in Alaska for over 61 years. He began his career
in the newspaper business and Bob spent over 50 continuous years as
publisher of The Anchorage Times. His endeavors, accomplishments
and influence reached all corners of Alaska. His priorities were
not focused himself, but on the bettering of the community and the
state.
"Atwood emerged in many facets of the state. He was instrumental
in the battle for statehood. He worked hard to promote
infrastructure development, not only in his community but the
entire state. He tirelessly promoted the presence of the military
in Alaska. Atwood was an advocate for education, promoting the
Journalism and Media Departments at Alaska Pacific University and
the University of Alaska. From the statehood era to present-day
education, Atwood has left his mark and impression in the minds of
all generations.
"Some people talk about other people. Some people talk about
things. Great people talk about ideas. A man full of ideas and
dreams for the state he loved. Robert B. Atwood never stopped
doing good for Alaska. His spirit remains. This great man, Bob
Atwood, has earned the honor for a State building to hold his
name."
Number 0220
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY favored passing the bill without amendments.
He believed the Bank of America Building owners could be approached
and asked if they would relinquish their name in honor of this
bill. He said, "If they didn't, at least we could come back in the
year 2002, I believe."
Number 0232
LEW WILLIAMS, JR., testified via teleconference from Ketchikan.
Mr. Williams read his testimony:
"I began running Alaska newspapers in Wrangell in 1946. I retired
as publisher of the Ketchikan Daily News in 1990 after owning
and/or running newspapers in Juneau, Wrangell, Petersburg, Sitka
and Ketchikan over a career of 44 years. I currently serve on the
Board of Regents of the University of Alaska.
"I have known Bob Atwood since 1946. And I am currently editing a
history of Alaska newspapers authored by his late wife, Evangeline.
"Bob Atwood was chairman of the Alaska Statehood Committee in the
1950s which successfully lobbied for the legislation that created
the State of Alaska. For that reason alone, there's justification
for naming the building at 550 West Seventh Avenue, Anchorage, for
the man. We already have named state facilities for other
prominent fighters for Alaska statehood such as Gruening, Bartlett,
and Egan. And it's appropriate to commemorate Atwood's
contribution.
"In addition, Atwood was a major contributor to the economy and to
education in Alaska. He editorially supported development of
resources and made a school of journalism and communications at the
University of Alaska, Anchorage possible with his annual endowments
of $50,00 to $100,000 a year in the past 17 years.
"He similarly contributed to Alaska Pacific University, was one of
its founders, and served on its board of trustees. He also
supported other public and private organizations for the benefit of
the entire state and his community.
"He was one of the founders, with this retired publisher of the
Alaska Newspaper Association, in an effort to improve newspaper
performance in Alaska. He was recognized nationally as a leader in
the newspaper field by his service as a judge for the Pulitzer
Prizes and as an officer in various national newspaper
organizations.
"Although the newspapers I operated may have disagreed with Atwood
and his Anchorage Times on Alaska issues, on occasions we agreed
most of the time. And I have always found Atwood a true Alaska
pioneer and Alaska promoter. And unlike some who made their
fortune in the state and left, Atwood maintained his home in Alaska
and continued to contribute to the betterment of the state after he
retired from the newspaper business. His estate still contributes
to Alaska's universities.
"Renaming the Bank of America Building in Anchorage the Robert B.
Atwood Building is very appropriate."
Number 0487
KATIE HURLEY testified via teleconference. She presented her
statement:
"I spent 12 years in the office of Governor Gruening. I am proud
to come before you to tell you what I know of Robert B. Atwood's
contribution to Alaska. When Ernest Gruening became Governor in
1939 he was 52; he joined Bob Bartlett, 35 who was Secretary of
Alaska (the same as Lieutenant Governor). Robert Atwood was 32 and
the publisher and editor of the Anchorage Times. These three men
with their background of working journalism became friends and
enthusiastic advocates for Alaska and worked together in cause for
statehood. These three men when they were together made work
exciting; they were full of ideas and visions. Of course, they
didn't always agree, but in my memory they never disagreed in
public. In those early years, Gruening had plenty of critics, but
Bob Atwood saw the leadership he was providing and gave his
programs editorial support. Often having to endure the wrath of
the opposition as a result.
"The 1945 legislature called for a referendum on statehood at the
next election. At the time there were only two newspapers
reporting the statehood cause - the Anchorage Times and the
Ketchikan Chronicle. On October 8, 1946 the vote was 9,630 for and
6,822 against. Bob Atwood's strong support was the key to that
victory. Chambers of Commerce were opposed; the absentee fishing
interests were against it. Parenthetically, it was not until Bill
Snedden bought the Fairbanks News Miner in 1954 that that paper
came out in support of statehood now.
"In 1949, former Governor Gruening urged the legislature to act
affirmatively to hasten statehood. In early March, with three
weeks left in the 90-day session, legislation was introduced to
create the Alaska Statehood Committee. Eleven members, no more
than six of them of the same political party. It passed the Senate
with one dissenting vote and the House with two dissenting votes
and one absent. Robert Atwood was one of the 11 appointed by
Gruening. He was elected chairman and took the job seriously. He
served as chairman until statehood was achieved in 1959 when the
committee dissolved in accordance with the law.
"In 1950, Delegate Bartlett's statehood bill was passed by the
House of Representatives. The fight became real. Bob Atwood was
tireless and dedicated in leading the committee, testifying along
with many other Alaskans, gathering and publishing facts,
traveling, all put on his own dime, to further the cause. Everyone
was frugal in those days; long distance calls were a luxury; people
wrote long letters; sent telegrams in emergencies. Atwood supported
editorially the passage of an income tax and other progressive
taxes. 'It was important to show Washington, D.C. we have the
ability to govern ourselves,' he said.
"In 1995, when the legislature called for a constitutional
convention, the work of the Statehood Committee became intense.
Through Atwood's fine leadership, an amazing amount of research and
planning took place in those few months, April through November
when the convened. Looking back it seems unbelievable -- all
accomplished with telephones, typewriters, carbon paper and
mimeograph machines. But we did have leaders like Robert B.
Atwood.
"On January 3, 1984, at the celebration of the twenty-fifth
anniversary of statehood at the University of Alaska, the 55
delegates and 6 others were honored as founders of statehood.
Three posthumously - Bartlett, Gruening, and Diamond. Robert B.
Atwood was one of the six and the only Alaskan who was not an
elected official."
Number 0789
KEITH GERKEN, Architect, Division of General Services, Department
of Administration, stated, "We have no problem with the
legislature, we simply want to point out that there is a specific
lease provision between the state and the Bank of America
Corporation that requires the building to be named the Bank of
America Building for the term of that lease. That's a contractual
obligation that the state inherited when the state bought the
building last July. It was a provision that was negotiated
previously with the (indisc.) of the Equitable Life Insurance
Company and the bank - back in I believe in 1993. Therefore,
(indisc.) the building leases and their provision are incumbent
upon the state. So, it is our belief that, until the Bank of
America lease is terminated, or expires in 2002, that we will not
be able to change that name; at least without the Bank of America's
preparation of agreement. We've had no specific discussion with
them about that, but it is our impression that they believe there
is some economic value in that that they would attach to having
their name on the building."
Number 0870
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER said, "As the sponsor mentioned, 2002 would be
when that provision would naturally expire unless their corporation
chooses to move out sooner. We proposed that amendment of the bill
would be acknowledging the existence of that lease provision so
that it would be clear that that is good."
Number 0894
REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ asked if the Bank of America
believed there is good will attached to having the bank name out in
public on a regular basis.
Number 0910
MR. GERKEN responded he was not sure. He stated, "We did not have
specific discussions with them about what they would want to change
the name. When we talked to them last summer about their lease,
they modified their use of the building - they reduced their space
in the building since last summer. During those conversations we
raised the issue about, 'Would you be willing to eliminate that
provision about the naming of the building?' And, they said, 'Yes,
for some money.' And so we took it no further than that."
Number 0941
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ suggested they convey there is good
bipartisan cross section of the community whose goodwill toward the
Bank of America would be affected by this in this regard. He said
he would be happy to convey that message.
Number 0951
REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON asked what happens if we pass the law as
drafted - saying that we changed the name. It would appear to me
that if we do that that the Bank of America could have an action
against the state by saying, "You're violating - the legislature by
enacting this law renaming the building has violated a portion of
our lease or our contract agreement." He indicated they may be
subject to a legal action. Representative Elton asked if that was
an appropriate interpretation?
Number 0989
MR. GERKEN responded he probably could not answer that. It was his
impression that contract law takes precedence. And if the bill
passed and became law, before they could change the name of the
building, they would look into that. He said, "Because we wouldn't
want to do it - cause the state to have action against it. My
assumption is that if the bill passes it is - and if the state
attorneys would say that the contract and lease has precedence,
that you cannot override that contract with this piece of
legislation that we would not formally change the name until that
lease expired or was terminated."
Number 1030
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON acknowledged, which means then that your
department would be operating in violation of the law.
Number 1040
MR. GERKEN responded, it's important for the contract - and which
takes precedence is something the Department of Law would have to
define.
Number 1046
CHAIR JAMES indicated there are a lot of laws that are put on the
books that are not implemented because regulations aren't drafted.
She said, "It appears to me that based on the statement by
Representative Cowdery, that we could do this and the contract law
would be superseding it - and then whenever it's available, two-way
if possible, (indisc.) should have a conversation with the Bank of
America Building and get their permission, or the other is to wait
until the rent - lease is over and at which time this then would
become effective. It seems to me we can't do something if there is
an impairment there. But I don't think that discourages the
interest of this statute. Would you concur with those statements."
Number 1093
MR. GERKEN replied in the affirmative. They would either come to
an agreement with the Bank of America to delete that provision to
name the building, or would wait until their lease expired.
Number 1111
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY stressed there is no effective date on the
bill. He said, "That's why I mentioned the year 2002 as a
possibility - if we can't get it changed. I don't think there
would be any violations anyplace - to the bill I have written."
Number 1135
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated his impression is, if a bill has no
effective date, that the effective date is 90 days after it is
signed.
Number 1142
CHAIR JAMES agreed. She stated had they put in an effective date
it might have had a little more thrust. She said, "Because we're
not the only ones that has something to say about this building we
can only say what we as a state want to do about it. And if there
is another party that has an interest, we have to agree to that.
We don't have 100 percent control."
Number 1175
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Representative Cowdery if he had an
objection to this proposed amendment being attached to Section 1 of
the bill.
Number 1197
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY was opposed to amendments at that time. He
believed the Bank of America was approachable. He said, "Talk to
them before we make amendments or things like this. My hope and
impression the bill will become (indisc.) in the year 2002...."
Number 1235
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated, "If you had been open to this, I would
have suggested adding the phrase 'or negotiated settlement to the
proposed language here.' But, if you don't want to add the
amendment, that's fine."
CHAIR JAMES repeated Representative Berkowitz's statement, we do
have some stock in this issue.
Number 1268
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said, "A question of Representative Cowdery
talking about an amendment that isn't before us, and I don't know
if you're more comfortable if I move the [proposed] amendment so we
can talk about it."
Number 1278
CHAIR JAMES responded she was not comfortable with it.
Number 1289
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON indicated he remained a little uncomfortable
and wanted to address the [proposed] amendment with Representative
Cowdery.
Number 1290
CHAIR JAMES said she believed they waived to talk about the
[proposed] amendment because it had not been moved forward.
Number 1291
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON explained the [proposed] amendment allows two
things to happen. One, it gives legal authority to a negotiation
with the former owners - because it allow for the termination of
that signage language. And it is accomplishes, legally in law,
that it becomes effective 90 days after the bill is signed - if
passed. He indicated it accomplishes what the sponsor wants to
accomplish. That the name of the building would change in the year
2002. Representative Elton believed without the amendment they may
be putting themselves in the awkward position of creating a law
that can't be enforced because of a contract provision.
Number 1357
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON continued, "The other thing it could do is, if
people stared calling the building the Atwood Building, it seems to
me it could - that law - on it's face gives an action by the former
owner against the state. So I think that we accomplish what you
want to accomplish and we protect ourselves through the adoption of
the amendment."
Number 1365
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY believed it could be approached within the
next 90 days by the legislature, or the state, as well as
individuals who support the Bank of America.
Number 1386
CHAIR JAMES indicated is was the first committee of referral and
asked what the next committee of referral is.
Number 1392
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY said he believes the Senate has a similar
bill that would be heard later that day. He pointed out there
wouldn't be a fiscal impact unless an amendment was added which
could be possible.
Number 1438
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ suggested they hold HB 309 to give the
sponsor an opportunity to speak with the former owners of Bank of
America. He said maybe they would see fit to recognize Mr.
Atwood's efforts on their behalf.
Number 1452
MR. COWDERY replied that he preferred not to hold the bill in
committee.
Number 1460
CHAIR JAMES stated she supports moving the bill out of committee in
its current form.
Number 1490
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he understands Chair James' desire to
move the bill and there's probably not much he can do to impede its
progress. Representative Berkowitz pointed out that he believes
the bill proccess should be clean and he'd feel more comfortable
knowing what Bank of America has to say.
Number 1516
CHAIR JAMES stated they would all like to know what the Bank of
America would say. She said if there is an opportunity for
Representative Cowdery to get his bill to the Senate before the
Senate bill gets to the House, she would like to help him out.
Number 1550
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON jokingly said, "I want to beat the Senate too,
and I want to do it in a manner that I feel comfortable with and
that is clean and that nobody can come back and point fingers and
say in our haste we overlooked a couple of things. In light of
that, I move Amendment 1."
Number 1588
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON concluded, "This allows us to continue the
discussion with Bank of America so we don't need to have them
today, and it allows for the name to change at the expiration of
the term of the lease. So, with that, I'd encourage members to
vote in favor of the amendment so that we can beat the other side."
Number 1602
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out the [proposed] amendment would
give the legislature the opportunity to retract it by the time it
gets to the floor, if it proves unnecessary.
Number 1618
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY indicated the bill would be heard in the
House Rules Committee before it goes to the floor.
Number 1630
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN stated it was just a matter of timing. He
believed the committee as a whole would consider any change(s), if
necessary, on the floor. He said it's just technical matters that
that they were dealing with and didn't believe it was
controversial.
Number 1658
CHAIR JAMES asked if there was objection of advancing the proposed
amendment. A vote was taken on the following amendment:
Section 1 is amended to read: Sec.35.40.110. Robert B. Atwood
Building. The state office building at 550 West Seventh
Avenue in Anchorage is named the Robert B. Atwood Building [.]
subject to the termination or expiration of existing name and
signage provisions contained in the lease between the Bank of
America and the State of Alaska.
Representatives: Dyson, Ivan and James voted no. Representatives:
Berkowitz and Elton voted to pass the amendment. The motion
failed.
Number 1709
WILLIAM TOBIN, Editor, The Voice of the Times testified via
teleconference from Anchorage:
"I am Bill Tobin, and editor of the The Voice of the Times - and
for some 30 years an editor and an executive of the old Anchorage
Times. Prior to that I was for more than 17 years a newsman,
correspondent, regional executive and bureau chief for the
Associated Press - including a four-year assignment in Juneau that
spanned the last two years of Alaska's territorial history and the
first two years of statehood.
"As such, my friendship with Bob Atwood dates to my arrival in
Alaska in 1956 - and includes, of course, not only those 30 years
as his colleague at The Times but also a continued close friendship
after his sale of The Times and until his death a year ago.
"I am very grateful to members of the legislature for their
consideration of this bill to name in his honor the new state
office building in Anchorage.
"In my view, it would be a fitting tribute to a great Alaskan - and
prove for generations yet to come a continuing reminder of the men
and women whose courage and dedication and relentless belief in
Alaska's future made statehood possible.
"I came to the territory when the battle for statehood was still
being waged - here at home, in Washington, and across the land. I
was privileged to come to know all of those who were in the front
ranks of the battle. That included, of course: Atwood, Bartlett,
Egan, Gruening, Snedden and many others of their stature.
"As an editor and publisher of The Times, Bob Atwood's editorials
fired the furnace of the statehood engine. As chairman of the
Alaska Statehood Committee, he was the organizer, the planner, the
fund-raiser, the chief executive officer for the whole campaign.
He led countless trips to Washington [D.C.], lobbying Congress and
developing the eventual successful strategy that produced that
great day when The Times proclaimed in a giant-size headline:
'We're In.'
"For that alone, Bob Atwood is deserving of the lasting honor that
would be bestowed by enactment of this bill.
"But Bob Atwood did more. He was a builder, a visionary, a prophet
when it came to the future of Alaska and Anchorage.
"Bob Atwood's 60 years in Alaska will be recognized by generations
to come as one of the most remarkable eras in the state's history.
"We would not be where we are today without the efforts of Bob
Atwood, Bill Egan, Ernest Gruening, Bob Bartlett and other pioneer
leaders of their day. All of them respected Bob Atwood, were
devoted to him, recognized him as a leader, and walked the trail
that he carved toward the future.
"Putting his name on the state's newest office building, in the
heart of the city he loved and served, is the right and proper
thing to do."
Number 1847
FULLER COWELL, publisher of the Anchorage Daily News, testified via
teleconference from Anchorage. He said, "Thank you for this
opportunity to add my voice with those of (indisc.) in favor of
renaming the Bank of America Building in honor of publisher Bob
Atwood. As a young apprentice press (indisc.) in Fairbanks, I
watched Bob Atwood demonstrate his dedication to journalism and
confidence in Alaska's economy by installing the first multi-
million dollar metro-sized off-set newspaper press in Alaska back
in 1969. As the young publisher of the Cordova Times, back in the
mid 1970s, I benefited from Bob Atwood's generosity by coming to
Anchorage to listen to world class journalism by Benjamin Bradley,
editor of the Washington Post. These seminars were funded
primarily through contribution from Mr. Atwood's Anchorage Times.'
Over the years hundreds of inspiring young Alaskan journalists have
had exposure to some of America's best. Contemporary journalist,
through his funding of The Atwood Chair of Journalism at the
University of Alaska Anchorage. Finally, for the record I would
like to send a copy of last Saturday's editorial in the Anchorage
Daily News supporting the legislation to honor Mr. Atwood in this
fashion. Mr. Atwood moved large for Alaska's history. It is
altogether fitting that the state building which moved large on
Anchorage's skyline should be named in his honor."
Number 1928
GLORIA ALLEN, Music Teacher; Theater Producer; Arts Activist,
testified via teleconference from Anchorage. She stated, "I met
Bob 22 years ago and he was a very very special friend. He'll be
remembered for his many contributions to our community. But his
contributions to the arts was extraordinary. With his wife
Evangeline he either helped start, or certainly continued to help
maintain many of the arts organizations. Supporting them
throughout his life to the very end. His loyal support, as well as
his financial support was enormous. He was always there for those
of us troubling in the arts. Without his influence and support
many arts organizations would not have survived. And he certainly
helped establish his standard of excellence for the arts during
his (indisc.) in Anchorage. He made it possible for people like
myself to remain active in the arts in Alaska and always saw to it
that the local artists were given appropriate attention in his
newspaper The Anchorage Times. He was a great community spirited
person, he remained involved until the end of his life with the
Chamber of Commerce, his rotary, his military community. And I can
think of no one more deserving for such an honor than Robert Atwood
(indisc.) Alaska."
Number 2004
VIC FISCHER, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He
presented the following statement:
"I'm testifying on behalf of three living Anchorage delegates to
the Alaska Constitutional Convention, each of whom also served in
the Alaska territorial legislature: Seaborn J. Buckalew, Jr., Steve
McCutcheon, and myself, Victor Fischer. The three of us
enthusiastically support naming the new building for Bob Atwood.
"As you know, the state constitution was written as part of
Alaska's fight for statehood. And as others have pointed out,
statehood was Bob Atwood's biggest cause. There was not one person
who so fervently and outspokenly argued for statehood as Bob
Atwood. As a individual, as a publisher, and as chairman of the
official Alaska Statehood Committee, Atwood devoted endless energy
to bringing self-governance to Alaska. He fully deserves to be
remembered and honored for this tremendous contribution to Alaska.
"Statehood was an overriding, nonpartisan goal, and the fight was
waged together, on a completely bipartisan basis. Bob Atwood, a
Republican, worked shoulder to shoulder with Democrats Bob
Bartlett, Alaska's Delegate to Congress, and Ernest Gruening, our
Territorial Governor, in providing the leadership and drive for
statehood, in which each of us participated. It was a long, tough
battle, and was glorious when we finally did become a state. Bob
Atwood was there all the way.
"In Addition to acknowledging Bob Atwood's contribution to
statehood and his total dedication to Anchorage, Steve McCutcheon,
Judge Buckalew, and I also considered Bob Atwood a good friend. We
were sad when he left us, but we will be glad to see his name
emblazoned on Anchorage's state office building."
Number 2082
LEE GORSUCH, Chancellor, University of Alaska, Anchorage, testified
via teleconference from Anchorage. "I'm the chancellor of the
University of Alaska, Anchorage, but am appearing here this morning
as a citizen of Alaska and a resident of Anchorage. (Indisc.)
generally reserves the opportunity of moralizing it's great
achievements and large city virtues by using the occasions of
statutes and buildings as a way of memorializing those achievements
and virtues. It's a very customary practice, therefore, I think
the consideration under HB 309 is quite appropriate.
"While Bob has not been one known as an elected official, none the
less, he did dedicate his life and his profession to the
advancements of societies overall good. As others who have already
testified and indicated, his contributions to Alaska statehood are
perhaps unparalleled. His life has also been characterized by
those who appreciate the civic virtues of love of country, of
valor, courage and commitment. All of which Bob personified.
"About two years ago we had the opportunity at the university of
providing a (indisc. - noise) celebrating the life and contribution
of Bob Atwood while he was still alive. And during that time I had
the opportunity to say a few words to Bob. He physically was a big
man, he had big ideas, and big dreams. He came to Alaska and made
big contributions. He was successful in building a big wallet.
But because he had a big heart he also gave big contributions, not
the least of which were to the University of Alaska, Anchorage, as
Fuller Cowell just described in creating the Robert Atwood chair of
journalism which brings distinguished journalists to the state of
Alaska to prepare our students who wish to carry on the mantel of
profession of first class journalism. For those of us who know Bob
there is a tinge of irony that the state office building would
carry his name since bureaucracy was often times the subject of his
criticism and not serving the public interest better. While that
tinge of irony is - brings a (indisc.) smile to all of us who know
Bob well, my personal view is that actually gets to the yin and
yang of life. That there is a need to bring a balance in our views
to the social realities that we each confront. I strongly
encourage and support your favorable consideration of HB 309. It
serves societies purpose, it's not simply in honor of Bob but it's
an honor of the civic virtues and his great contributions to the
state of Alaska."
Number 2211
CHAIR JAMES urged the sponsor to diligently search for answers to
the questions that were discussed that morning and indicated
solutions could be addressed in the House Rules Committee.
Number 2234
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON urged support of the bill. He noted, for the
record, "I found it interesting that the people who testified -
most of the people who testified in favor of this bill and this
honor for Robert Atwood are probably deserving of having a building
named after themselves also. So, I don't think we're going to have
a problem with this bill. But, I wanted to put it on the record
that I don't think we've had a much longer, or more distinguished
list of people testifying (indisc.) in front of this committee."
Number 2267
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ made a motion to move HB 309 out of
committee with individual recommendations. There being no
objection, HB 309 was moved from the House State Affairs Standing
Committee.
HB 264 - NEGOTIATED REGULATION MAKING
Number 2300
CHAIR JAMES brought up the next order of business which was HB 264,
"An Act providing for a negotiated regulation making process; and
providing for an effective date," sponsored by Representative
James.
Number 2315
WALTER WILCOX, Legislative Assistant to Representative James,
Alaska State Legislature, came before the committee. He identified
CSHB 264(STA), 0-LS0910\F, Bannister, 1/15/98, as the working
document. Mr. Wilcox indicated Section 09.65.235 relates to
civil immunity and can be found on page 7 of the old and new draft.
Number 2375
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON moved to adopt Version F. There being no
objection, Version F was before the committee.
Number 2401
DOUGLAS MERTZ testified in behalf of the Prince William Sound
Region Citizens Advisory Council (RCAC) which is a nonprofit
organization formed in the aftermath of the Exxon Valdez spill.
Number 2425
MR. MERTZ stated there were some specific problems the RCAC found
to be quite serious and contrary to the intent of the bill. Mainly
the committee makeup is of members of the regulated profession - it
does not include members of the public.
[TAPE 98-2, SIDE B WAS NOT RECORDED ON]
TAPE 98-3, SIDE A
Number 0001
MR. MERTZ indicated there is no provision to provide notice that a
committee is being formed. He referred the Open Meetings Act and
noted the public does not have the right to participate or say
anything. The bill states the committee members serve at the
pleasure of the head of the agency. For example, if a commissioner
had a particular bias or private agenda he could boot a member off
the committee without stating a reason. Subject to the Open
Meetings Act he said, "The Open Meetings Act doesn't apply to non-
decision making committees within an agency." He suggested making
a simple technical amendment making it clear. Mr. Mertz provided
the following suggested text for amendments:
Number 0170
"Regarding notice of proposed formation of a regulations committee,
insert, 'The agency shall request nominations to the committee
through notices in newspapers of general circulation at least
fourteen days before making appointments to the committee.'
"Regarding fair and balanced makeup of regulations committees,
insert, 'The membership of a negotiated regulation making committee
shall fairly reflect the main interests and viewpoints regarding
the subject of the regulations.'
"Regarding the right of the public to participate, insert, 'The
committee shall permit public testimony at its meetings.'
"Regarding termination of a committee member, insert, 'May be
removed by the had of the agency for good cause.'
"Regarding applicability of the Open Meeting Act, insert,
'Notwithstanding anything in those sections to the contrary.'
Number 0245
CHAIR JAMES made it clear that it was a volunteer program which is
intended to eliminate disputes. She pointed out the purpose of
negotiated rulemaking would automatically not do those things even
though it says they can or can't.
Number 0443
MR. MERTZ responded the golden rules of legislative interpretation
is intent is meaningless unless you actually required it. He said
the intent of the bill is clear, yet, nowhere does it 'require'.
The way it is written it could be abused, if a commissioner wanted
to use it to stack the process in favor of a particular viewpoint.
Number 0525
CHAIR JAMES indicated there is a cost involved because HB 309 has
no fiscal notes. That means, while an agency determines that they
are going to use this process, they know that they have to get the
money somewhere else because they are not going to be able to tap
their budget.
Number 0524
MR. MERTZ made reference to the increasing cost of newspaper
advertising. The commissioner still would have the discretion of
who to appoint. But, at least people would be notified and could
make the request to be on the committee.
Number 0586
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ noted he too was concerned about the
notice requirement. He pointed out, if you look at the
Administrative Procedure Act, that notice is required as is.
Number 0613
MR. MERTZ responded that notice is only required in the formal
regulations promulgating process, and under this bill there would
have to be notice of a meeting. But, you should have soliciting to
prevent a stacked and biased committee.
Number 0645
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated one of the impediments to using this
process is going to be cost. He agreed notice prior to the
formation of a committee makes sense and recognized that legal
notice is a large source of revenue for many newspapers.
Number 0663
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said, There may be some ways that a good
manager can't take, for example: that all agencies now have a home
page which they could notice perhaps a potential formation of one
of these committees.
Number 0687
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON made reference to Mr. Mertz [written] comment
that nothing in the bill requires that a committee's makeup be fair
and representative of the broad range of interests. He pointed out
in HB 264, page 2, lines 13 and 14, that the agency shall consider
whether, "(2) there are a limited number of unidentifiable
interests that are held by more than one person and that will be
significantly affected by the regulation." And goes on to say,
"there is a reasonable likelihood that a committee can be convened
with a balanced representation of persons who can adequately
represent the interest identified under (2) of this section."
Number 0772
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON believed that accomplishes one of Mr. Mertz's
concerns, and construed this bill has added a new step that does
help to do that, and takes some of the discretion of the manager
away. That is what this accomplishes.
Number 0788
MR. MERTZ referred to legal battles of interpretation of statutes.
He said, One of the main rules is you can have an intent stated but
the intent is not operative. You also need something that puts the
standard into law. He said, "It would be perfectly legal here for
a commissioner, or head of an agency, to go through this process,
identify the interests and needs, and so on, and still appoint a
committee that represents only one interest - that would be legal.
Bear in mind also, there is no judicial review." He believed the
way to put the commissioner on the spot, to appointing a fair
committee, is to point to 'the committee shall be fair and
representative of the interests.' This intent becomes mandatory
law. Without it, it is not required.
Number 0897
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated he thought the intent was already
codified in law by saying the members of this committee can
adequately represent the interests identified under (2) which are
that there are varied interests and the commissioner, or the agency
director is required to make a finding that those different
interests be there. He did not believe that gave the manager more
latitude than Mr. Mertz's proposed language.
Number 0928
MR. MERTZ said he believed the law is very clear that intent
language like this is not mandatory. If there is any question
about whether the standard is mandatory, then make it mandatory.
Number 0944
REPRESENTATIVE MARK HODGINS said, "I see this bill as coming
forward as a step for folks to begin to get into the process. They
are not making a decision that is binding, they are making an
advice type decision. That binding decision will be made later on
and there is a mechanism that brings that into the public's comment
period. I don't think we should unduly restrict by adding extra
commitments that this committee would have to do to start this
process. While I do agree with some of the things that you brought
forward, if this was a binding committee I would say yes, but this
is not a binding committee."
Number 1009
DEBORAH BEHR, Assistant Attorney General, Legislation and
Regulations Section, Department of Law, reiterated Representative
Hodgins' statement that the intent of HB 264 is to provide more
public input into the process in a less bureaucratic manner, and
less costly, and avoiding delay. Some of the suggestions made were
discussed by the administrative committee and were rejected because
of concerns about delay, bureaucracy and cost.
Number 1064
MS. BEHR said, "This is an advisory process, this is a (indisc.),
anything that comes down has to go through the entire
Administrative Procedure Act which includes lots of public notice -
lots of opportunities to comment. There are lots of checks in the
process through people being able to go to the commissioner and ask
for members to be added, to go to the regulation review committee
and ask for review of the situation, go to the governor, to go to
any elected official and ask for some review of it."
Number 1084
MS. BEHR referred to page 6, lines 4 through 6 of the proposed
committee substitute and said a regulation that goes through
negotiated rulemaking process is given no greater (indisc.) than
any other regulation when it goes to the court. It is still
subject to judicial review.
Number 1111
MS. BEHR stated the original bill did have a notice of formulation
of the committee, however, the House Special Committee on
Administrative Regulation Review decided that was not necessary in
a state like Alaska. If a person wanted notice of it they could
send a letter to the commissioner. If there is a problem, it is
going to be subject to the Open Meetings Act, the commissioner can
always add someone later.
Number 1139
MS. BEHR continued, a formal notification process is costly and
also a delay. If you are going to have a meeting, you have to give
people the opportunity to provide their name and background and
repeated that they decided that this wasn't necessary. There is a
more informal process that meets the same goal. She stated they
also agreed that the committee should be balanced.
Number 1162
MS. BEHR addressed a second concern regarding fair representation
of all interests. She said that it is difficult to determine
whether someone is fair or not. Ms. Behr indicated she believes
the standards in the bill are helpful because they are balanced.
For example, it would be difficult for her to give legal advice to
the commissioner as to who is a fair person and who is not.
Number 1188
MS. BEHR believed the participation in the process is an absolute
essential element of any successful regulation. The public
participation is guaranteed in the Administrative Procedure Act.
Again, any citizen can write a letter to this committee or to the
commissioner and say please look at it. If the commissioner
believes the committee is not looking into it - they serve at the
pleasure of the commissioner - the commissioner can say you better
look at it or we'll find someone who will.
Number 1228
MS. BEHR mentioned if there is a problem, there are "checks" done.
She pointed out they have to come back and report to the
legislature in five years as to whether or not it is working. She
stated changes could be made at that point.
Number 1242
MS. BEHR believed that the bill is clear on the Open Meeting Act
change. She suggested the committee members contact their legal
counsel if they had any questions on that.
Number 1253
MS. BEHR responded to the concern of pleasure or cause. She said,
"These are limited duration committees -- It's not like somebody
who's going to be there for three years or four years. In order
for me to be able to successfully work with getting someone off the
(indisc.), I have to generally have a history. And I have to be
able to prove a history. What typically happens is someone doesn't
come to meetings and they have a good excuse. We have to build a
pattern for that. And in order to get a pattern - by that time the
committee process will be overlooked. These committees, I don't
think will last for more than a year, maybe longer. At that point
we -- essentially what you're doing is setting up where there is no
way to remove someone who is not doing a good job."
Number 1302
MS. BEHR concluded, the check and balance is for example, if the
commissioner is acting inappropriately, they know how to get to the
legislature, governor and regulation review committee.
Number 1314
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated Ms. Behr indicated a person
receives notice after they have discovered that the rulemaking is
implied - that something is already going on. He believed that was
not the type of adequate notice that Nebraska, Montana and the
federal statutes envisioned.
Number 1341
MS. BEHR agreed that they have these provisions. However, the
statutes are not being used that much because of the bureaucratic
steps that are in it. In a small state like Alaska, it is very
hard to keep a meeting hidden and she could not see no reason why
a commissioner would want to keep it hidden.
Number 1357
MS. BEHR said, "The goal of the state is to get a consensus, and
since they are not being funded more money for this it doesn't help
us to set up some veil of secrecy. Also, all the meetings have to
be noticed to the public. So the first time there is a notice -
that someone has some objection to the makeup of the committee they
could certainly come to the commissioner, or the governor, or the
regulation review committee and handle it that way."
Number 1382
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ noted one of the other goals is designed
to foster public confidence in the process by making the process
more open and available. If there is an appearance that any
cloaking is going on that destroys that intent.
Number 1394
MS. BEHR assured Representative Berkowitz if the commissioner
asked, she will tell them to give as much public notice as
possible.
Number 1400
CHAIR JAMES said, "It is a different piece of legislation than
we're use to having, because it's a volunteer process. And that's
the only way we can keep the cost down and also encourage public
support." The net results of the regulations would be more
effective and more workable.
Number 1468
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON noted there are no rules in the Open Meeting
Act, or any other references, to preclude a member of one of these
committees from voting over teleconference.
Number 1489
MS. BEHR said it was her understanding that voting over
teleconference is allowed.
Number 1511
KIRSTEN SHELTON, Lobbyist, Alaska Conservation Voice, came before
the committee. She agreed with HB 264, but had suggestions. She
said their greatest concern is the selection of participants is too
discretionary - the measure says to guarantee the participation of
all interested parties. No time is warranted to develop a
consistent, reliable methodology that would address this concern.
MS. SHELTON suggested the bill should be made clear that consensus
agreement may be altered, if as a result of public comments.
MS. SHELTON asked for clarifying procedures for appointing
conveners and facilitators and stipulations regarding funding.
MS. SHELTON suggested more extensive public notice be given
regarding the formation of a committee. Ensure that certain rules
that pertain to expansion of the committee be retained.
MS. SHELTON said, "And the possibility of developing a pilot
project to pre-test the negotiated regulation making."
Number 1625
CHAIR JAMES stated if there was a fiscal note on HB 264, it is
dead. She said when the regulations go through the public process,
someone may come forward with an interest they have that is
overwhelming - and the regulations could be changed. This
committee is goal as opposed to process oriented. Amendments could
be made in 1999.
Number 1730
MR. WILCOX said they are trying to bring the public into the
regulation making process. People in Alaska feel regulations have
become unfairly forced upon them - regulations they had no part in
making or do not understand. The tyranny of regulations is what
people are so upset about in the state of Alaska. He noted all the
fiscal notes from the departments were zero.
Number 1837
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he is supportive of this effort and
referred to Mr. Wilcox's statement, "the tyranny of regulations."
He said we see this in federal and state law, and in federal and
state regulations - that those who are most likely to organize and
participate in the process are those who have - what could be
construed as a direct economic benefit. He explained there is a
tie between the rule, the regulation, or the law - and their
economic benefit. Some of us can not (indisc.) in economic
benefits - by rule or by regulation - may be to protect our health,
safety, and the opportunity their children may have in the future.
Representative Elton said they had to define those who have a valid
public interest - more broadly than those who have an economic
interest. Representative Elton said this gives us an opportunity
to try new ways to do that.
Number 1916
CHAIR JAMES clarified that the public, that Mr. Wilcox hears from,
believes the regulations are tyrannical.
Number 1955
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON responded sometimes those who define those
regulations as tyrannical have a direct economic interest in those
regulations. He said some times it is easier to organize around an
economic interest than it is to organize around another interest,
amorphous such as public health.
Number 2015
REPRESENTATIVE MARK HODGINS made the motion to move CSHB 264 out of
committee with individual recommendations and attached zero fiscal
notes. There being no objection, CSHB 264 moved from the House
State Affairs Committee.
HJR 5 - CONSTIT AMNDMNT: FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE
Number 2025
CHAIR JAMES announced the next order of business would be HJR 5,
"Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to freedom of conscience," sponsored by Representative
Martin.
Number 2039
REPRESENTATIVE TERRY MARTIN said the supreme court has subjugated
freedom of conscience - only a statutory right versus a
constitutional right -- But the U.S. Constitution, and many other
states, guarantee it. The court(s) has also put freedom of
religion with freedom of conscience. Historically, freedom of
conscience was more superior. Should freedom of conscience be a
constitutional right rather than a statutory right.
Number 2168
PATRICK DALTON testified via teleconference from Delta Junction.
Mt. Dalton quoted from Revelation, chapter 13 versus 16, 17 and 18,
stating we are commanded not to receive a mark on the forehead or
hand. He believed a national identification number [social
security number] is a step in that direction. Mr. Dalton wondered
how the freedom of conscience would impact him if it comes to the
point where he is required to violate his religious beliefs.
Number 2261
CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Dalton, since he had not taken his social
security number, if he had no interest in social security rights or
benefits.
Number 2292
MR. DALTON indicated he ran into a lot of discrimination recently
and didn't believe he would be able to receive his Alaska permanent
fund any longer. He was taxed $300, or more out of the permanent
fund, and believed there is no recourse to get it back from
Internal Revenue Service.
Number 2331
REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN stated for a couple years he did not get a
dividend check because he did not believe in the Permanent Fund
Dividend Program. But, he receives it now because he contributes
it to a charity - that was his freedom. He recognized, in a way,
Mr. Dalton was expressing his freedom of conscience.
Representative Martin noted, however, Mr. Dalton must suffer the
consequences accordingly.
Number 2350
CHAIR JAMES stated nothing in this life is free, but we do have
some freedoms and we can choose.
Number 2369
KENNETH JACOBUS testified via teleconference from Delta Junction.
He said he testified on HJR 5 before. Since he testified, the
supreme court decided Mat-Su Coalition for Choice v. Valley
Hospital Association, - it is even more clear that things are out
of balance in the state of Alaska. He indicated Alaska is now the
most pro-abortion state in the United States. The Alaska Supreme
Court and Valley Hospital stated that the Alaska Constitution
protects abortion more broadly than the U.S. Constitution protects
abortion. Under the supreme court decision, unwilling participants
may be forced to perform abortions. The supreme court also said,
in Footnote 18, that a person's own religious belief cannot be a
compelling state interest because that could violate the
establishment clause.
Number 2400
MR. JACOBUS said Valley Hospital will have to pay approximately
$150,000 in attorney's fees, to the other side, plus their own
attorney's fees because they relied on state statutes. The state
is also going to lose the parental notification and partial birth
abortion laws in judicial review based on the Alaska Constitution.
Number 2424
MR. JACOBUS indicated the legislature needs to allow the people to
vote on two issues relating to the Alaska Constitution. Put
freedom of conscience into the constitution so that Alaskans will
not be forced to violate their conscience. Most important the
subjection of abortion needs to be taken out so that the
constitution is made neutral.
TAPE 98-3, SIDE B
Number 0001
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON believed the issue of life support has a
different opinion as a matter of conscience. He asked if this
applies much more broadly than pro-life, pro-choice.
Number 0015
MR. JACOBUS agreed. He pointed out that he is not necessarily
concerned about pro-life, pro-choice. Mr. Jacobus stressed he is
concerned about keeping the constitution neutral - and not have it
support one side or the other. He said there are gray areas in
this, but believed a person's right to be protected in their own
beliefs is so important that the gray areas could be settled later.
Number 0043
CHAIR JAMES stated she had struggled over our constitutional rights
of freedom of religion - including keeping government and religion
separated in public schools. Chair James asked if freedom of
conscience is a stronger statement than freedom of religion.
Number 0079
MR. JACOBUS responded it is a stronger statement of your right to
protect yourself against being forced to do something that you do
not want to do.
Number 0095
MR. JACOBUS concluded there are two different concepts, one of
which is protected, one of which is not protected right now.
Number 0104
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Mr. Jacobus to point out the
language indicating that an individual can be compelled to do
something against his conscience in the Valley Hospital case.
Number 0110
MR. JACOBUS stated that was his belief as to what the effect of the
position is. He noted there was no specific language in opinion
that states that - that was the logical exception of the opinion.
Number 0118
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked for clarification - that is not part
of the opinion.
Number 0127
MR. JACOBUS commented that the result of the opinion makes Valley
Hospital do things which are against the consciences of the members
of the Board of Valley Hospital. The opinion does not have broad
language which says any person may be ordered by the government to
violate their conscience.
Number 1146
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he is concerned with freedom of
conscience. He asked what impact it would have on the subsistence
debate.
MR. JACOBUS replied that he did not know.
Number 0158
CHAIR JAMES indicated HJR 5 would be brought up at the next House
State Affairs Committee meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 0166
CHAIR JAMES adjourned the House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting at 10:00 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|