01/27/1998 08:04 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
January 27, 1998
8:04 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jeannette James, Chair
Representative Ivan Ivan, Vice Chairman
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
Representative Fred Dyson
Representative Kim Elton
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Mark Hodgins
Representative Al Vezey
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 5
"Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to freedom of conscience."
- HEARD AND HELD
* HOUSE BILL 304
"An Act relating to the location of the convening of the
legislature in regular session; repealing provisions relating to
student guests of the legislature; and providing for an effective
date."
- HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HJR 5
SHORT TITLE: CONSTIT AMNDMNT: FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(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
01/27/98 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 304
SHORT TITLE: MOVE LEGISLATURE TO ANCHORAGE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) GREEN, ROKEBERG, Ryan
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/12/98 2024 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/2/98
01/12/98 2024 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/12/98 2024 (H) STA, L&C, FINANCE
01/15/98 2056 (H) COSPONSOR(S): RYAN
01/27/98 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL
WITNESS REGISTER
LIZ DODD, Acting President
Alaska Civil Liberties Union
1008 Parks Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 463-2601
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HJR 5.
STEVE WILLIAMS, Attorney
500 "L" Street, Suite 400
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 276-6922
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HJR 5.
PAULINE UTTER
13820 Jarvi Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99515
Telephone: (907) 345-3463
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HJR 5.
ROBIN SMITH
14100 Jarvi Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99515
Telephone: (907) 345-4407
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HJR 5.
JEFF LOGAN, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Joe Green
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 118
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4931
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 304.
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 24
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4968
POSITION STATEMENT: Cosponsor of HB 304.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 118
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4931
POSITION STATEMENT: Cosponsor of HB 304.
BRAD PIERCE, Senior Policy Analyst
Office of Management and Budget
Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 110020
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0020
Telephone: (907) 465-4677
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 304.
DENNIS EGAN, Mayor
City and Borough of Juneau
155 South Seward Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-5251
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 304.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 98-6, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:04 a.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives James, Berkowitz, Dyson, Elton
and Ivan. Representative Hodgins was excused and Representative
Vezey was absent.
HJR 5 - CONSTIT AMNDMNT: FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE
Number 0014
CHAIR JAMES announced the first item would be HJR 5, "Proposing an
amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to
freedom of conscience," sponsored by Representative Terry Martin.
Number 0045
LIZ DODD, Acting President, Alaska Civil Liberties Union (ACLU),
came before the committee to testify on HJR 5. She stated the
Alaska Civil Liberties Union opposes HJR 5. She said the problem
her organization sees with the resolution is that it is general and
far reaching in that it really could eviscerate our state
constitution by providing a blanket exemption to anyone who could
assert reason of conscience for not obeying a state law. Ms. Dodd
indicated she isn't sure how conscience is defined in the proposed
constitutional amendment. If it is religion, it should say
"religion." She said something could be crafted along the lines of
the Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act that was passed by
Congress a couple of years ago. Subsequently, the Act was
overturned by the United States Supreme Court saying that it
granted over broad special protections to religious individuals.
Ms. Dodd said the ACLU supported the congressional legislation. As
she understands, there had been some efforts to put religious
protections in place in some states.
Number 0232
MS. DODD explained it is not clear to her what the actual intent of
the constitutional amendment is. She said, "For instance, I was
just looking through the constitution thinking well what could be
affected by this. The big one that jumped out at me was Article
VIII, where the state has delegated authority to regulate fish and
game. If I were to assert a religious belief that I could take
certain species at certain places during seasons that the state
hadn't said -- state regulators had prohibited, could I then
practice that? I mean it seems to me pretty readily arguable that
there is some very ancient beliefs that go to hunting and fishing
outside of state regulated season's limits."
MS. DODD referred to traditional uses of controlled substances for
religious rituals and questioned whether the amendment says that if
there are peyote users in Alaska, they can assert a right of
conscience to use those controlled substances, or marijuana users
who can asset a religious belief in the use of marijuana as has
been asserted elsewhere in the country. She questioned if that was
the intent of the HJR 5 and said she fears that is what it will do.
Number 0505
MS. DODD pointed out that polygamy has come up in other states.
Some people hold a religious belief that you shouldn't have to get
a marriage license and be married to one person. Ms. Dodd said
everything she has mentioned are invocations of the right of
conscience which could easily be applied.
MS. DODD referred to the Valley Hospital case that compelled the
Valley Hospital, since it received public funding, to provide
abortion services. The board had voted to no longer make those
services available. The Alaska Supreme Court said, "No, if you
receive public funding, you have to respect this fundamental right
of Alaskan women." Ms. Dodd said, "There is nothing in that
decision that requires a doctor or any other medical personnel to
participate to perform this procedure or participate in it. In
fact, the judgement that was upheld by the court in that case
stated specifically -- and I'm reading from that judgement,
'Nothing in the permanent injunction, granted as part of this final
judgement shall require any member of the medical staff of Valley
Hospital or any other officer, agent, servant or employee of Valley
Hospital to participate directly in the performance of any abortion
procedure if that person, for reasons of conscience or belief,
objects to doing so.'" Ms. Dodd said she hopes that the bill
doesn't move. It will create some real problems for the Alaska
Constitution and state laws in general.
Number 0730
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON said, "If indeed the members of the staff
at Valley Hospital are free to not participate in procedures that
they have objection to, and yet as I understand it the hospital is
required to provide. So then as I understand it, the hospital is
in the situation of being required, by law, to provide a service
that the present staff are unwilling to do. Is it then your
position that they would be compelled to go out and find and hire
somebody else who would provide the abortion services and keep the
present staff without firing them."
Number 0822
MS. DODD said she believed the problem with the Valley Hospital
case is that the hospital board passed a policy which explicitly
stated that abortions would not be provided there. She indicated
she is not a lawyer, but has a broad understanding of this case and
was hesitant to answer that question. Ms. Dodd said, "As I
understand that language that I just read, if I'm a nurse at Valley
Hospital and there is an abortion that's going to be performed, I
can say I don't want to participate in this procedure. Now what
happens if the nurse says that, the lab tech says that, the doctor
says that. Well then Valley Hospital is faced with the situation
where a woman has asked for a procedure which the hospital is
required to provide and they're not being able to provide it. Are
they then required to get a doctor in there who can provide that
procedure? That's a difficult question I'm not sure I have the
answer for, but I know that any of those individuals can abstain
and then it's back to an administrator's problem. It seems to be
kind of going to that individual. There's really not a problem
there now."
Number 0939
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said it was his understanding that history of
the freedom on conscience in our country is that it has largely
been, by law, forced to be tied to religious perspective, probably
so that everybody can't say that their -- whatever it is that their
conscience - they say their conscience is compelling them to do or
not do is of their own interpretation.
Number 1009
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said he noticed that Representative Martin's
constitutional amendment does not tie the freedom of conscience to
religious perspective and recognizes, probably rightly, that a
person can have a conscience without a religion. He asked if it is
the ACLU's position that having a conscience without a religion is
unacceptable.
Number 1033
MS. DODD said, "If you look at where you've had conscientious
objection before in the laws and, again, kind of just what I know
about -- if you think about like conscription military service
conscientious objection. That was a statutory exemption that was
tailored with specific requirements. As I said earlier, we would
look at that. We would look at a statutory proposal coming out of
this legislature that stated, 'Particular religious exemptions for
under particular circumstances for a particular acts.' That is
something we would look at because there is a constitution -- under
our state and the federal constitution, there is protection for
religion. And if you have a religious belief, and you're going to
be asked to do a specific act and you have a legitimate religious
objection to that act, like the thing under the RFRA (Religious
Freedom Restoration Act) was land marking. Should churches get
treated differently under the zoning acts than does a mobile home
in a trailer park? And we supported the position that said yes,
churches do get treated differently. They should be treated --
when those laws are enforced, churches enjoy special exemptions.
The supreme court didn't agree with that. So it has to be narrow,
it has to be specific, it has to delineate what acts you can --
otherwise anybody can have a conscience -- a conscience is a fluid
concept, anybody can just say I don't believe in that."
Number 1158
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said the answer to his question was yes, that
the ACLU does not want people to be able to -- conscience -
conscientious position without a religion.
Number 1211
MS. DODD said that wasn't what she said. She stated "What I said
was that, well, that there could also be a conscience objection
that you could substantiate in other ways. If I could show that
I've been a vegetarian for 30 years and there is some requirement
somewhere that I do something that violates that. And I say,
'That's not really a religion thing, I'm just an old pacifist. You
know I don't like to kill anything. I have a deity involved.' You
know those kinds of beliefs have been -- I think there -- I hate to
adventure this too because again I have not litigated cases. I
could definitely ask our staff to look and see if there is a case
where there were conscientious objectors during the Vietnam War who
were not religious people, but were pacifists with purely secular
reasons. So, I will not sit here and say the ACLU doesn't support
freedom of conscience outside of the context of religious beliefs
because there could be instances -- just one more reason why you
have to very specific about what you are talking about with
something like this."
Number 1323
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said most law restrains conduct as opposed to
compelling conduct. He said it seems to him that Representative
Martin's bill says nothing about people being free to use their
conscience as an excuse to disobey the restraint of law.
Representative Dyson said to him, what it seems to say is that they
would be free to not be compelled to act proactively if they have
a conscience objection. He asked Ms. Dodd if that is also her
understanding. And secondly, are there words that can be added to
make it more clear that this law is directed towards not being
compelled to act proactively against her conscience.
Number 1423
MS. DODD asked if something could be added to this proposed
constitutional amendment to make it more clear. She said she
doesn't believe so. She said the ACLU objects to this venue of
trying to put this into the constitution. She said when you craft
a statute, it has very specific things in it that narrow it and
make it understandable by courts and individuals. She said, "When
you put a blanket provision in the constitution like this, you're
really -- I mean - well, I guess you kind of just leave it to the
courts to interpret what it means." She said she can't answer
Representative Dyson's question as she doesn't know what the bill
means. She said she doesn't know if it restrains as well as
imposes a duty upon someone. It said it could be construed to do
both. It's just the wrong way to do it.
Number 1522
CHAIR JAMES said she has watched the ACLU for a long time and they
never cease to amaze her where they come down on issues. She said
sometimes she agrees with them and sometimes she doesn't. Chair
James said she has a conscience and she has violated her conscience
before and suffered greatly for it. Alaska also has young people
who have a conscience. An interesting thing about your conscience
is if you violate it once, it's not nearly as difficult the next
time. It's called conditioning. She stated that we have a whole
society that does those kinds of things. She referred to her own
conscience and said part of it is religious and part of it is based
on law. Chair James said because she can understand what her
conscience is, it's difficult for her to believe anybody doesn't
know what a conscience is. She said what a conscience is and what
drives it may be different.
Number 1627
CHAIR JAMES said, "Because I can understand what my conscience is,
it's difficult for me, knowing what my conscience is, and thinking
about this in a long-term, that other people don't understand what
the definition of conscience is. To me, it is just a thing we have
within us and the dictate maybe comes from lots of different things
- not always religious, sometimes religious, but something that you
just wouldn't feel comfortable with if you did that. It is
interesting when I was watching the Pope over in Cuba and one of
the things he had asked for is for the turning loose of a lot of
prisoners over there who are prisoners of conscience. And having
people prisoners of conscience is a very common thing in a place
where we don't have the democracy and the freedom that we have in
this country. So it all plays into my understanding - and I
understand all your concerns, and so forth, but there are ways of
determining whether a person is using what they say is a conscience
not for a conscience but for some other reason. Quite frankly, I'm
supportive of this piece of legislation because I think that
destroying your conscience is one of the most destructive things to
your psyche that there is. The feeling guilty - I've violated my
conscience a number of times and the guilt that I feel is very
devastating. I really believe that the conscience is the one thing
that we have that guides us through our life, whether it is
religious-based or whether it is based on what we were trained or
whether it is based on the law of your country or all those
different kinds of ideas to get. So you don't need to respond to
me. I just wanted to let you know how I felt about that issue."
Number 1839
MS. DODD said, "I really agree with a lot of what you said and I
can see why this would be a little confusing as an ACLU position.
Really what drives our position in this case is our devotion to the
Alaska Constitution. We happen to think this is a great state
constitution. We'll always oppose any insert - amendment to it -
that is going to weaken it overall and we think this will. I too
have a conscience and I suspect that your and my conscience really
doesn't compel us to do things often that are outside of the laws.
I'm not a polygamist and I suspect I would have heard about it if
you were. However, how do we differentiate? What is your
conscientious belief and what is mine? That is the danger here.
A polygamist can assert that you have a conscience that says don't
kill. A polygamist can have a conscience that says don't get a
marriage license. Under this broad language, those are equal
rights and that's the danger here."
Number 1955
CHAIR JAMES indicated there were no further witnesses to testify.
Number 2020
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN made a motion to move HJR 5 out of
committee with individual recommendations and with the attached
fiscal note.
Number 2033
CHAIR JAMES noted HJR 5 has a further referral to the House
Judiciary Standing Committee where these issues will be further
discussed.
Number 2043
REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON objected to the motion. He said, "I think
that it's interesting after the testimony we just heard, and
testimony that we received in a previous hearing, from somebody
that oddly enough who supports the bill that talks about the
massive amount of gray areas. And I think we've touched upon those
today and we've touched upon those previously. And I guess I'm
objecting to moving this bill forward until we can review some of
those gray areas. I mean it just seems to me that if this
committee passes out this bill with this many questions out in
front of us that what we're doing is we're essentially endorsing
the constitutional amendment that, in the end, may prove to be
nothing more than a vast playground for litigant's lawyers. I
think we need to get to the bottom of some of these questions
before we move it out. I don't think it's right to move the bill
forward to another committee and them answer those questions."
Number 2149
CHAIR JAMES reiterated that the Judiciary Committee is the next
committee of referral which is the absolute positive place where
those issues ought to be discussed. She said, "I think the State
Affairs Committee is looking at what is in the best interest of the
state or how it effects the state, as a whole, if the provisions of
the implementation of the freedom of conscience would probably be
put into statute as to determine as to whether a person is claiming
a conscience without a conscience, which is the only problem that
I see is that if they're claiming a conscience for something they
don't want to do, and really they have no basis for a conscientious
decision on that, would be the only place that we would have a
problem. Quite frankly, my understanding of people with a
conscience out there in my lifetime - I have not seen any place or
any situation that I wouldn't have been comfortable letting a
person have their freedom of their conscience. We have freedoms in
our U.S. Constitution such as the freedom of the press, we have a
freedom of religion, we have the freedom of speech, we have all
those freedoms which are modified in the state's best interest.
And so it's not a right that can't be infringed. Even our right to
keep and bear arms - we don't have that - we can qualify for those
things. So the fear that people have over what it seems to be a
new approach is, as far as I'm concerned, at the basis of a free
country that we have the freedom to believe like we believe in this
country. If it is not in the state's best interest, our U.S.
Supreme Court has found many cases that the presentation before
them says it doesn't apply here. And I am perfectly comfortable,
even though I do have a little bit of distress with court decisions
that lower courts sent up to yield myself to the U.S. Supreme Court
to hear such cases that might come before them. So I think that
the freedom of conscience is the one thing that separates this
country with other forms of government and any other kind of
indoctrination that makes people behave like they do. I appreciate
your ability to disagree on this issue, but I sincerely would hope
that I would have the cooperation with the committee to move it to
Judiciary where any legal issues could be thoroughly investigated
before it is moved from there."
Number 2438
REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ indicated his past experience leads
him to a different conclusion. This is suppose to be a nation of
laws, and a bill like this is a recipe for anarchy. He said, "As
seen in the courts, people will come in with what you might
consider to be absurd expressions of conscience that based on their
sincere beliefs, they didn't have to follow any of the laws of the
state, be they traffic laws, be they laws regarding physical
assault and with this broad language, they would have valid
advantage. And I think that's the wrong step to take. I think it
adds injury to our ability to carry on in a civil society. It
opens the opportunity for people to do things as extreme as blowing
up oil rigs because their conscience doesn't allow them to take the
fruits of the earth; to beat their wives because they feel that
that's their prerogative. And without investigating those
consequences, I think we're moving precipitously.
Number 2556
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said he would be interested in seeing if there
is any modifying language that could make the bill more clear. To
him, the bill seems to be talking about being free from the law,
compelling a person to action as opposed to restraining action. He
said the analogous situation is in the battle that was slavery. It
appeared as if our country was not going to be able to quickly get
rid of this so called "golden institution." What precipitated a
massive revolt in the North was the Runaway Slave Act. He believed
the first one was in the 1820s and it was modified in either 1853
or 1857. Finally, what was so outrageous to folks in the North was
their law enforcement people and courts were forced to participate
in returning runaway slaves to their masters in the South. He said
before that time, they had been at least partially insulated in
that if they didn't believe in slavery, they didn't have to
participate. To be compelled to participate, with their tax money
or their communities institutions was an outrage.
Number 2750
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said he believes that what Representative
Martin is after is for folks not to be compelled to participate in
that which they consider to be an outrage. He said,"I think you're
right, I think this will cause some litigation and I think there
will be some tests of it. I would welcome suggestions on how it
could be more carefully crafted to allow people to escape from
being forced, by law, to participate in activities they consider to
be a moral outrage. But I think that the dangers we may encounter
in going forward are insignificant compared to the value of people
being free to not be forced to participate in morally outrageous
activity. And I would welcome your help in the future as this bill
goes on forward."
Number 2845
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he believes the distinction that he
has with Representative Dyson is that he believes the constitution
already protects the right of people to stand up and say, "No."
That is enshrined in our right of privacy. He said this amendment
allows individuals to stand up and disregard the will of everyone
else. That is a fine stance to take in most instances.
Representative Berkowitz said he thinks that people who are willing
to be civilly disobedient should be applauded for their courage,
but there has to be a balance between civil disobedience and the
rule of law. Without the rule of law, the freedoms of everyone
else in society are impacted. Everyone else suffers a diminution
of their freedom. That's the consequence of HJR 5.
Number 2947
CHAIR JAMES said, "It's interesting you bring up the freedom of
privacy. It doesn't say anymore than that in the constitution. A
freedom of privacy, yet we know what that is and it can be
infringed upon when in the best state's interest, we lose our
privacy every single day. There are things that we have -- we give
up our privacy. So, to say that the freedom of conscience can't be
described to me is -- I don't understand that because even as I
mentioned the other freedoms that we have, they're not a freedom,
you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded room when there isn't a fire
without having -- you don't have that freedom of speech. There are
lots of times that our freedoms, when they are not in the best
state's interest, are infringed. The freedom of conscience misused
would be infringed by our courts of law. It is -- to say that you
have a freedom of conscience is no different than having a freedom
of religion, or freedom of the press, or the freedom of speech, or
the right to keep and bear arms. The rest of the law, it
establishes a goal that we have and so you know even though -- I'm
hoping that the argument on this, and we can stop this argument if
I don't have enough votes to take bill out of committee today we
can withdraw the vote. And I do happen to have four people on
teleconference that wanted to testify that I missed so we can do
that. But I'm hoping that the argument, in opposition to this
piece of legislation, is not based on anything political because it
has tendency to go down a political path. Particularly since the
issue of the abortion in the Valley Clinic is an example of the
freedom of conscience. How that would be -- if we had this
constitutional amendment, would that decision have been made any
differently? Probably not. The issue was, in the Valley Hospital
-- that because they took public funds, they had to do what the
public allowed to have happen. Now they can have a freedom of
conscience probably, under our existing law, by refusing to take
public funds and then they wouldn't be under that thumb. And
already the situation was that the individuals didn't have to do
that. What it doesn't go far enough to say is, 'Then what does the
hospital do now that it has to provide service and now no one wants
to do it?' So I think it's a mistake to compare this freedom of
conscience -- constitutional amendment to have anything to do with
abortion or anything to do with any other political issue. This
has to do with you being able to live under what your conscience
says you ought to live under. And also one of the things I think
we've had a problem over all of these years and you know it's
interesting, I keep, you know, getting older is kind of fun in a
lot of ways because I can remember what happened a long time ago
when things were different, when conscience really meant something.
It doesn't mean anything anymore. It's time to bring it back, I
think, and put it on the table and say, 'We have one.' If we don't
have one, we better get one. And then once we get it we better
base it on something that is real and we better stick to it. I
think this is an appropriate time to bring this forward."
Number 3336
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said, "Thank you Madam Chair. I appreciate
the latitude that you've given us because I think this is important
discussion that we've had and I just - in the context of this
discussion I just want to make three points. One is I think for
everybody at this table - most people in this room - I mean I
think we all do have a conscience. It may differ in some respects
and I think conscience is important now as it has ever been,
especially in a much more complicated world. The value of a good
conscience, however you may describe that, is extremely important.
So I don't think that anybody who may oppose this constitutional
amendment isn't opposed to conscience."
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said, "And the second point is I think the
discussion on the right to privacy that's enshrined in our
constitution - I'm kind of glad it was brought up because it shows,
I think, the unintended consequences of language -- that's not well
defined in the constitution. And one of those unintended
consequences of broad language - a good example of the right to
privacy. I don't think that anybody at this table anticipated the
right to privacy would be found by the courts to ensure personal
possession of marijuana, but in fact that's exactly what did happen
with a court decision in this state maybe 15 years ago. I can't
remember when the Raven decision was issued. So I think that is a
good example of what broad language can accomplish when it is
enshrined in the constitution. There are unintended consequences
that sometimes pop up that we can't anticipate."
Number 3513
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said, "Finally, I think the thing that bothers
me the most -- I mean we can talk about all the big issues, whether
it's - does somebody have the constitutional right of conscience to
go out and shoot a moose for subsistence purposes. I mean those
are kind of big issues and we tend to like to use those issues
simply because they're in the news now and (indisc.) great debate.
But it comes back to me to a lot of the smaller issues and I want
to give an example of a small issue that is very important to me.
My wife and I have discussed life support systems. I have made a
decision that I don't want to be kept alive beyond what I would
consider my normal life course. I don't want to end up going into
a hospital, be put on a life support system and have a doctor's
freedom of conscience abutting against my freedom of conscience so
that my wife has to go to court, in a very distressful situation,
to protect my right of conscience. So we can talk about this, we
can put it in a big arena, but really what it comes down to it
we're starting something here that none of us can really define how
it's going to be used. None of us can really say what a judge in
a black robe is going to decide for us. It's kind of unfortunate
because I don't think anybody here would argue against the
application of conscience in our lives. And so my opposition to
this isn't because I don't think we should apply our individual
consciences in the way we live. My argument is that we can't tell
what the consequences of this kind of a constitutional amendment
will be."
Number 3700
CHAIR JAMES asked Representative Elton if he is saying that he
wishes the right to privacy would have been better defined so that
situation wouldn't have occurred. She said she is real happy with
the right freedom of privacy or the right to privacy. She said she
understands why the court made that decision. Chair James said we
have freedom in this country and our freedom extends to where it
doesn't bump into someone else's - that's the given. The court
recognizes that you only have freedom until it interferes
negatively with other people's lives. She said she doesn't have a
problem with those blank statements.
Number 3749
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said in answer to Chair James' question, he is
not about the right to privacy. He said he is just using that as
an example of what some of the unintended consequences can be.
Number 3758
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said, "As the state constitution has been
referred to, we have a broad different constituency in this great
state and the size of the state. And some of the comments made of
polygamy or allowing that -- some of the ways of life that the
constituency has out there is different and has as been different.
And as far as the constitution is concerned, I have no fear of
trying to improve. It is so hard to change it when the political
process and the process we use to get from this point to the
amending or changing of the constitution. But we do have, like I
said, different constituents that live a different way of life that
I believe did not understand or had an opportunity to craft this
constitution that we all abide by. And I just wanted to bring
those points out and the difference of the people that are being
governed out there and the values and the philosophy of life that
the government has within them. Sometimes their frustration in
efforts to improve their way of life -- and I've heard of the word
'subsistence' being alluded to in this case -- in this discussion.
Thank you."
Number 3945
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said Chair James brought up the contest of
the right to privacy and how everyone is supportive of it. Yet,
what inspired Representative Martin to bring this bill forward
again revolves around the privacy issue. He said, "I know that you
and Representative Dyson have a different view of the right to
privacy as it relates to reproductive choice then Representative
Elton and I do. That's the difference. Those kind of differences
are enshrined in the constitution and I'd suggest with the law of
unintended consequences you're going to see even more divisive
problems with the freedom of conscience bill as it sits here."
Number 4053
CHAIR JAMES said her position on abortion has nothing to do with
the right to privacy. She said her position on abortion is that
she believes that life begins at conception. Therefore, she can't
take any other position except to support life. She said she
assumes that those people who support abortion do not believe that
life begins at conception. So that's a difference, it has nothing
to do with the right to privacy.
Number 4121
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he is not denigrating her position at
all, but the courts have found the right to choice through the
right to privacy.
Number 4132
CHAIR JAMES said she understands that, but that's not her reason at
all for that issue.
Number 4139
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said, "And though you control what happens
here in this room, the courts control what happens outside."
Number 4155
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN withdrew his motion to move HJR 5 from the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
Number 4159
CHAIR JAMES asked if there was an objection. There being no
objection, Representative Ivan's motion was withdrawn.
Number 4212
STEVE WILLIAMS, Attorney, testified via teleconference from
Anchorage. He indicated he is the attorney for the pro-choice
plaintiffs in the Valley Hospital case, but wasn't testifying to
talk about the interesting broader issues of conscience even though
he thinks there is a strong case that this could be called the
freedom of anarchy bill. He said he appreciates Chair James'
comments that, in a sense, conscience is always balanced against
the rights of others. He said he wants to make it clear to the
committee and to Representative Martin that the Valley Hospital
case is precisely about freedom of conscience. Mr. Williams said
even though there seems to be some confusion, although from some of
the comments he heard it has been somewhat cleared up. The simple
fact is that the court decision in that case expressly respected
the rights of conscience of those who oppose abortion, in any
particular case, because we have to recognize that people have a
broad range of views on abortion. Some people don't even believe
that abortion is proper where a woman's life is in danger, because
of her pregnancy, because they believe that only God can make the
decision as to who should live. Others have a whole range of views
up to a relatively a permissive use concerning abortion. Mr.
Williams explained some people, for instance, don't believe rape or
incest is an adequate reason to prevent an abortion. He noted Pat
Buchanan disagreed with that position. He said his point is that
there is a wide range of views that people have on the issue as we
all know.
Number 4412
MR. WILLIAMS pointed out that the important thing to know about the
Valley Hospital decision is that the injunction was entered in that
case as nothing in this injunction shall require any member of the
medical staff of Valley Hospital, or any officer, agent, servant or
employee of Valley Hospital to participate in the performance of
any abortion procedure if that person, for reasons of conscience or
belief, objects to doing so. He said the supreme court excerpted
that language in its decision affirming just that in the
injunction.
Number 4445
MR WILLIAMS said the important point is to recognize that both the
superior court and the supreme court, in the Valley Hospital case,
respected and protected individual rights of belief in conscience.
He said, "The right of a woman to make the difficult, often painful
choice whether to have a lawful abortion and the right of a
hospital employee to choose, based on his or her conscience or
beliefs, not to participate in an abortion procedure -- and that's
the important thing. I think it fits very clearly, and I actually
think I heard Chair James acknowledge that, it fits very clearly
within the notion that rights of conscience have to be structured
in such a way which respects other people's rights of conscience
and belief."
Number 4545
MR. WILLIAMS said he believes what is at stake here is tolerance.
He said the people in the Valley Hospital community who disagreed
with abortion were required to tolerate the fact that some people
disagree with them about abortion, including some women who may
choose to have abortions and some physicians or other medical staff
who may choose to provide the medical services related to those
abortions.
Number 4508
MR. WILLIAMS referred to the slavery analogy and said when he was
growing up there was quite a battle in the South over desegregation
of schools. People were forced to accept the fact that black kids
were going to go to school with their children even though they
strongly opposed mingling of the races. In many cases, it was for
religious reasons. He pointed out that many of the leaders in the
segregation movement were ministers. He said we all remember the
most prominent symbol of the Ku Klux Klan, burning crosses on yards
and at churches. He said his only point is that the Valley
Hospital case did not violate anyone's right of conscience. All it
did was require them to tolerate the fact that other people might
have differing views of conscience or religious beliefs.
TAPE 98-6, SIDE B
Number 0039
PAULINE UTTER testified via teleconference from Anchorage. She
asked why Representative Martin feels that this bill is necessary
in light of the Valley Hospital case. She then read Mary Osbeck's
testimony.
[NOTE: Due to a recording malfunction, Mary Osbeck's testimony was
indiscernible.]
Number 0227
ROBIN SMITH testified via teleconference from Anchorage. Ms. Smith
said she is sorry she missed the first portion of the meeting
because she would have liked to have gotten a better sense as to
why the bill was put forth. She said she isn't clear as to what
exactly the consequences are of the bill. Ms. Smith questioned why
the bill is needed and what the bill would actually do. She said
she would like to hear about a specific case where the bill would
accomplish something. Ms. Smith said people have mentioned taxes
and abortion. She stated she can understand why they might not
want their taxes to go to abortion, but she can also understand why
people might not want to participate in the death penalty. That is
a law that several people want to also have in this state. Ms.
Smith informed the committee that she personally doesn't have
children and has never had an abortion, but she is compelled by
state law to participate, with her taxes, in supporting people who
have children in schools and (indisc.) Medicaid Program. Ms. Smith
said she actually thinks it is a crime when people have more than
two children because it's unfair to our (indisc.) on earth and the
environment. She said she believes people are being irresponsible
when they bring more children onto this earth than just themselves
and yet she is compelled to participate. Ms. Smith said we're
always talking about the government adding yet an additional layer
of bureaucracy. Ms. Smith said she would have to speak against HJR
5.
CHAIR JAMES closed the public hearing on HJR 5 and said the bill
would be held over until the next House State Affairs Committee
calendar.
HB 304 - MOVE LEGISLATURE TO ANCHORAGE
Number 0532
CHAIR JAMES announced the next item of business would be HB 304,
"An Act relating to the location of the convening of the
legislature in regular session; repealing provisions relating to
student guests of the legislature; and providing for an effective
date," sponsored by Representatives Green and Rokeberg.
Number 0623
JEFF LOGAN, Legislative Assistant to Representative Joe Green,
Alaska State Legislature came before the committee. He stated that
there is not much needed in the way of introduction of the concept
of providing better access to the people of Alaska to their
legislature. He said HB 304 directs the legislature to meet in the
Municipality of Anchorage beginning in January 2001. Mr. Logan
pointed out HB 304 does not move the capital. He pointed out the
results of the 1994 statewide ballot initiative indicated that
there is considerable statewide support and majority support in
Southcentral Alaska for the legislature to meet in Anchorage.
House Bill 304 directs the Legislative Council to arrange for an
appropriate meeting place to meet.
MR. LOGAN indicated the current dimensions of the House chambers as
being 60 feet by 52 feet. He pointed out it is the largest meeting
place in the legislature. He said it is not anticipated that
arranging for an appropriate meeting place in Anchorage would be
much of a problem.
MR. LOGAN said while credit should be given to the Alaska Committee
for their efforts to make Juneau a better host to legislators and
staff, their efforts simply can not overcome Juneau's remote
geographical location. Navigational improvements at the airport,
telecommunications infrastructure and more available housing have
all made Juneau a better capital city, but none of these
improvements have gotten a majority of legislators in touch with
the majority of their constituents.
MR. LOGAN continued that in comparison to the capital move, they
believe the legislative move does not have the same impact on
existing departments. Two of the larger departments have more
personnel in Anchorage then they do here in Juneau. He said
department commissioners and the Governor also have offices in
Anchorage. One commissioner designee has already stated that she
is moving her office from Juneau to Anchorage. He said they
believe the alleged problems of separating the legislative session
from the administrative offices in Juneau is a "red herring."
Number 0909
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG, Co-Sponsor of HB 304, came before the
committee. He said he believes Mr. Logan has reviewed the
situation in a reasonable manner. He said he would like to bring
a few other points to the attention of the committee.
Representative Rokeberg said he has lived in Alaska since 1946, and
first came to Juneau in 1946, on the SS Baranof. He indicated he
went to Anchorage in 1947 when he was three or four years old, on
the SS Aleutian. He pointed out that he had an opportunity to come
to Juneau once to do a consulting job for Behrends Bank in the late
1970s.
Number 0955
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he first walked into the Capitol
Building in 1994, to be sworn in as a legislator. Representative
Rokeberg said he had been active in the business and political
affairs of the state for approximately 30 years and had never been
in the Capitol Building. He said he believes that is typical of
most Alaskans. Representative Rokeberg said, "That's the key
element and the key issue when we talk about the capital move
itself, but in this instance we're asking for the consideration of
just moving the legislature. And I think that's the most important
thing and one of the overriding things (indisc.) this particular --
these legislative bodies, during their periods of operation, are
just not available to the average citizen of this state. It's too
costly to come to Juneau to meet with your legislators and to
testify at committee hearings. The legislature has done a lot in
endeavoring to overcome some of these problems by having
teleconferencing and other telecommunication devices that we're
looking at. I think we have some T.V. type screens that sit in the
Anchorage LIO (Legislative Information Office), but I never seen
them on during a legislative hearing. But I think we're trying in
some of those things, but frankly, I don't believe they're really
adequate. There is no -- I don't think there is any situation
where a constituent or a member or citizen of this state can be --
not meet directly with their representatives in both the House and
Senate I think is the most important thing."
Number 1137
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated he would like to make a few comments
about the building the legislature meets in. He said, "This is the
State Capitol Building with an 'o,' and Juneau is the State Capital
with an 'a.' And we're talking about moving the legislature
(indisc.). Normally, most state capitals include the executive and
legislative branches, and in many instances also the seats of the
judicial branch of the government. Alaska is the only state in the
Union that does not have a capitol building built for the purpose
of housing state government. This is, of course, a federal
building - was started in 1929, delivered in 1931, which certainly
has served its purpose over the years, but it was never designed to
be a state capitol building. And frankly, it's some 68 years old
right now and it's obsolete and antiquated, and frankly Madam
Chair, it's on its last legs. There is no question but what this
building needs to be replaced. I would say currently, right now,
this direction despite all the good efforts of our legislative
maintenance folks and all the money we pour into it, is a relic of
life-threatening importance to the people who occupy this building.
There is the numerous life safety violations of any building code
you wish to subscribe to. Most of the municipalities in the state
of Alaska, and the state of Alaska itself (indisc.), the uniform
building code. There are so many violations here, it's quite
something. First and foremost, I believe this building fairly
needs a new sprinkler. There is an issue whether it's 75 feet or
more in its (indisc.) in it's height, but I believe it is.
Therefore, it would be under a high-rise requirement. And
therefore, any other -- any jurisdiction in the United States would
be mandated to have a sprinkler system throughout. This building
does not."
Number 1335
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the geotechnical engineering and the
structural integrity of the building is certainly in question. He
said he believes the building is a type three geotechnical zone
which requires structural engineering to be able to withstand the
potentiality of modest earthquakes. He pointed out that he knows
that the ceiling system is not wired in such a manner for
earthquake potentialities.
Number 1429
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to the accessibility for the
disabled community and we've said a tremendous amount of money has
been spent on the building. He said the building is a historic
structure. He said, "To meet the letter of the ADA (Americans With
Disabilities Act) requirements, we have I think, in a large part,
done that. But, Madam Chair, have we met the spirit of the law?
This particular building is not easily accessible by the disabled
community and I think that's something we need to be aware of. In
spite of all the ramps that we built, the bathroom and shower we
built, and the other areas that we have for access to the building
-- I believe the elevator cabs are marginally sized, but I think
legal. But still it's marginal in terms of their size. I think
the most damning thing about the building is its floor
configuration as it relates to the fire code. There is numerous
dead-end corridors in this building and inadequate escape routes
for accessing on all the floors. There is a 20 foot dead-end
corridor rule in the uniform building codes. My office on the
ground floor is illegal unless I jump through the window. That's
not an access that's allowed under the building code. The House
chambers -- I think the Senate chambers are also illegal. You
cannot exit through an assembled area and have a designated fire
exit. Therefore, I think both the House and the Senate chambers
are illegal in their configuration."
Number 1611
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG continued, "And I'd just like to point out,
Madam Speaker, as the chairman of the committee - the Labor and
Commerce Committee, I have the distinct honor of having a committee
room on the ground floor area of this building. Madam Chair, this
room has a stairway in the middle of the room that people - when I
have a few people come for the intricate bills which (indisc.) have
this morning, people would be sitting on the stairway up to the
back courtyard area of the building. I suggest that the room is
too small. It's inadequate to have meetings. I don't -- with the
possible exception of the Senate and the House Finance Committees,
there is not a committee meeting room in this building that can
accommodate the needs of the public, barely its members or the
television cameras that we need to have in the room. No matter
where any committee in this state sat, we absolutely need to have
such things as the Gavel to Gavel broadcasting to bring everybody
in the state together so people knows what's going on in their
capitol building. I don't care if (indisc.) Juneau, Anchorage,
Willow or out in Bethel. And I think that's really important. We
need to have adequate design for the telecommunications of the
twenty-first century and frankly, Madam Chair, this building really
can't accommodate that."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said, "I guess, in closing, I would just
like to say I know a few years back the people of the city of
Juneau had an election here, October 5, 1993. And they had a
proposition on the ballot to build a $50 million building for the
state government center. I've talked to a few people about it, I
think there was some concerns at the time because there was the
Frank Initiative, and so forth, on the ballot in 1994. And there
was concerns, particularly in the Senate, that the legislature
wouldn't move into the building if the people of Juneau built the
building. So I can understand some of the reluctance to vote for
or against that proposition. Madam Chair, I would deposit that
citizens of this community voted by 6,659 against imposing a 2
percent sales tax to build a legislative hall and then 4,067 in
favor. So by a 3 to 2 majority, this particular community rejected
the concept of paying for a legislative hall. And there again,
echoed their sentiment about this particular legislature being
here. I think this particular legislature has been very important
to the economy of this particular city and it's a very important
thing, no doubt. But Madam Chair, I think that the access and the
ability of the citizens of this state to their government is a more
important and overriding concern. And just one final note on the
cost - I'd be happy to try to answer some of those questions the
committee may have. Even I have the background in some 25 years of
commercial real estate business in Anchorage and in the state of
Alaska, I've spent my entire career building and developing and
marketing high-rise and office building structures and other types
of buildings throughout this state, so I have a degree of knowledge
about those costs and related items. I think there might be a
marginal cost to moving the capital or, excuse me - please forgive
me, the legislature to Anchorage based on the - not on square
footage, the efficiency in which we look at the needs and the net
costs. If you look at the fiscal notes you have from the executive
branch, I find that really humorous that the executive [branch] is
going to spend $2.8 million a year to travel up to Anchorage to
testify before the legislature. I don't know. They haven't heard
of the $220 fare that Alaska has out here and the fact that they
almost everyone of them has premises and office space already in
Anchorage. So I find that really more than humorous they come up
with outlandish figure that has no meaning whatsoever. If that's
the case, then the state doesn't know how to budget their money
properly for other items if that's the kind of fiscal note they
come up with."
Number 2052
CHAIR JAMES asked if there were questions of Representative
Rokeberg.
Number 1138
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated, "I appreciate your comments on the
building and I was on the assembly when the issue for the voters.
I voted on the assembly to take the issue to the voters building a
new capitol. And I think you probably gave the reason that the
vote went the way it did when you said -- and I'm sure you
understand this as a 25-year professional real estate business
that, 'You don't build a building unless you can make sure you've
got a commitment that it's going to be occupied.' I thought that
was a compelling argument that was made. I think it was the
compelling argument that was made, even though I voted to take the
risk anyway. I'm sure you understand, as a 25-year professional in
the real estate business, that an issue before the people there
needs to an assurance that (indisc.). I guess the question I have,
Madam Chair, for the (indisc.) sponsor of the bill is that -- I'm
struggling how you ask this and I appreciate the extent of the
testimony you gave on the condition of the building because I think
many of us share that, but I would be interested in your views on
kind of a 'cowboy credo,' which is you take care of the animal that
is doing all the work before you take care of the cowboy. You
don't eat your beans until you fed the oats to the horse, and this
is an especially important credo, I think, after I've spent an
awful lot of time this last summer visiting other state facilities.
It seems to me that if we're going to talk about fixing up
buildings that maybe we get to this building that serves our needs
after we get to the school buildings that are not serving student
needs, and after we get to the ferries that aren't serving the
needs of Alaskans who travel on the ferries, and after we get to
roads, the harbors, the airports that aren't serving the needs of
Alaskans, both in the urban and rural situations."
Number 2300
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said, "I guess I'd like to tell you that I'd
be the first to co-sponsor, with you, a bill for a new capitol
building, but I'd feel uncomfortable doing that before we have
satisfied the needs of some of these other Alaskans that are out
there. I would appreciate your comments on the prioritization of
buildings that need to be fixed or repaired or built again."
Number 2329
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that is something that all members
need to look at in terms of prioritization of what the spending
requirements are. Clearly, there is an extraordinary number of
needs. He said he believes the deferred maintenance task force
came up with about $1.6 billion of identified needs in the state.
He said he is very sensitive to that particular need in the state.
Representative Rokeberg asked where the tens of billions of dollars
spent since the 1970s go. Representative Rokeberg said he believes
his past colleagues didn't really do the job necessary to keep the
backlog of maintenance down to a minimum.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said, "But nevertheless, I think when you
look at the fundamental needs of the state that we have to perform
the duties of government, and when you do that, you need to be
housed and you need to be housed in the buildings that are
efficient and safe. And when we reach that point, and believe me,
Madam Chair - Representative Elton, I believe we both share the
view that this building only has so much life that can be breathed
back into it because of the problems with it. I mean there is
numerous state capitol buildings. For example, in the summer I was
in Denver and went into the Colorado State Capitol Building. It
was built in 1884 - a significantly older building than this, but
it was built in such a manner and (indisc.) type U.S. state capitol
building with the massive structures and open spaces and the
architecture at the time -- that it is a very functional building
to this day. But this building is not because it was not intended
to be a capitol building and because of its suffering from these
problems that I think this building is going to have to be replaced
within the next 10 to 15 years perhaps. And I think that the
telecommunication demands and what's going to be happening in those
areas will accelerate that need to have a new building. So I
certainly wouldn't put this building and its replacement, which
needs to be done, above some of the more pressing needs of the
state. But to say that we don't have need for it and we can't put
that in our priority list is not really accurate. We need to
recognize that we need the proper structure to conduct business
in."
Number 2630
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON indicated he was significantly surprised at
the fiscal note. He asked Representative Rokeberg if there are
calculations as to what would be saved by moving the legislature to
Anchorage.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG indicated he hasn't ran any hard numbers.
He noted he hasn't seen a fiscal note from the legislature.
Representative Rokeberg informed the committee members he has seen
past studies that relate to the existing number of square feet that
is occupied in Juneau at about 107,000 square feet. He said he
knows the 107,000 square feet is not a valid number because it is
based on the existing premises and not on new design premises which
would be significantly more efficient. He referred to 1995
legislative studies and said there is a bill of $727,000 just for
telephone installation on the new premises in Anchorage.
Representative Rokeberg said he thinks that is ridiculous and said
in the private sector, you can go to the suppliers and say, "We'll
take your service if you install the system." He said that costs
zero.
Number 2922
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the problem is identifying the exact
efficient amount of square feet. He said the relocation costs are
grossly overstated. Representative Rokeberg said, "The fact that
we have existing premises in Anchorage, which we are paying about
close to a half a million a year for right now for the LIO office
there, with all these (indisc.) things I think I've come up with
rough number where there may be a net increase cost to the state if
we were to lease premises in Anchorage for the legislature which
would be a temporary housing through a long-range capitol building
wherever -- would be maybe in the range to $200,000 to $300,000 net
if you're very very tight on the budget. I mean this is rough
number - say $200,000 to $500,000 cost. But Madam Chair, I'm going
to tell you right now the cost to the constituents and the people
of the state of Alaska from flying from Anaktuvuk Pass to Barrow to
Cape Romantzof to Ketchikan to Juneau vis- -vis Anchorage is about
-- it's got to be a couple of million bucks a year. So that's the
issue. How do you balance that? That's a subjective type
statement. So if there is a net increase of hard costs of anywhere
from $200,000 to $500,000, the macro economic number of $2 million
to $3 million of savings to the people of the state of Alaska is
more important. So I would say if you buy into that reasoning, the
city of Juneau is charging a tax on the people of the state of
Alaska to have the capital here in old Juneau because it costs too
much to get here. And the people that don't come here, they defer
it because they can't afford it. That's an indirect tax, so that's
the point. So the numbers become kind of subjective,
Representative Dyson, when we look at...."
Number 3130
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN came before the committee to testify. He
said, "You heard economically and the problems with the building,
you've heard those kinds of comments. Mine are going to be more
humanitarian. In the fact that -- first of all though let me
address one issue that was discussed on the capitol building and I
cite some states like Alabama where the capitol building was built
with the rotunda and all the accouterments of a nice capitol
building, but for efficiency sake they now congregate their
legislature in a building out of the capital. The capitol now is
a museum that people are charged to go and visit. So there are
uses for a building, especially a building like this, it was never
intended to be a capitol building."
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN continued, "But now the humanitarian side, we
can kind of look at the map behind you and indicate that in no
other state does a person have to drive 800 miles, through two
international boarders, and catch a ferry to drive to its state
capital. No other state has the dispreponderance of it's citizens
so far removed from its capital site. And Madam Speaker, If you
were to include the area around Anchorage, instead some 45 percent
of the population and its representation, the commutable distance
including Wasilla and Palmer and those areas that do now commute,
there are many workers who commute into Anchorage daily, you'd be
up in the neighborhood of 60 percent of the people as well as 60
percent representation of those people all within driving range of
the capital. I submit to you that is a tremendous improvement over
this isolated location that we're in. I don't see anything
negative about the city, it's a magnificent, warm, beautiful -
beautiful place to be. As a vacation site, as a place to live,
it's a wonderful place, so I'm not condemning the city by any means
I'm just merely saying it's not an efficient place to conduct state
business."
Number 3338
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said, "If you would consider the average
person, and we are a state that's comprised supposedly of citizen
legislators, we're not career politicians - at least the majority
of us are not, that you actually cut out of the loop a significant
number of potentially good legislators in the fact that they are
either forced to do one of two things from that area that comprises
60 percent of the state. They either have to uproot their children
and bring them down here out of their school, or leave the family
at home and disrupt the family by having the legislature come down
here. Now there is transportation to and from but that then
becomes an extreme economic burden on the legislator. So in anyway
you look at it, it's not a reasonable expectation to continue to
say that as the rest of the state grows, and the representation
moves more and more to the central, southcentral part of the state
that they should remain out of the loop so to speak. And Madam
Speaker, other than the 5 percent of the legislators who live in
Juneau, even the outlying areas of the rest of the state, the bush
areas as it is often referred to, all have to come through
Anchorage before they get a plane to come on down to Juneau. I
submit to you, Madam Speaker, that it doesn't make a lot of sense
to have to go to that extreme to get down here."
Number 1824
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said, "And finally I submit to you that while
driving in Alaska is a risk no matter where you are, and that's
acknowledged by anybody, insurance companies and the like, but when
you have to subject yourself to long night time hours of driving in
order to get here, even a reasonable two, sometimes three days,
certainly those who drive straight through are in harms way. We
had another example of that in this convening this year, Madam
Speaker, with a legislative aide having gone off the road, rolled
down a 60 foot embankment, ended up upside down, destroyed the car,
fortunately was not killed. Now that doesn't mean there won't be
accidents if the state legislature moves and convenes in Anchorage,
but they won't be subjected to the long driving periods - the
fatigue factor that takes over. What I am suggesting is that
looking at it from all of the aspects, the economic aspects, the
fact that the building is inadequate, and the fact that we are
talking about the humanitarian aspect of getting the best possible
people that we can get to represent the people of this fine state,
we shouldn't exclude a large number of those, either because of the
fear of driving or because of the disruption of the family. So, I
would, as was done in the last legislative session and has been
tried for the three legislative sessions that I've been in, would
request that we consider moving this on up the line. I realize
that there were some questions asked about financing and that might
be appropriate that we would take a shot at a more reasonable
number. It's ironic when an Administration seems to like a bill,
the fiscal note is very low. When they dislike a bill, the fiscal
note is very high. That may just be (indisc.), I don't know. But
I think we could probably get numbers a little more reflective of
what really would happen and so I would appreciate the committee
taking all those things into consideration."
Number 3708
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON jokingly said, "I appreciate the inference
that - because the capital is in Juneau we attract a higher caliber
candidate." He pointed out the sponsor statement suggests that
perhaps the quality of legislative staff and quality of legislators
from outlying areas had been dragged down to some extent because of
special circumstances that the capital being in Juneau. It is easy
for me to say that Alaskans are very lucky with the quality of
legislators that they get, they're very lucky at the quality of
staff they attract. While we have our disagreements about the way
things ought to be done, I don't think that those disagreements are
based in any way on where the work is being done. And having said
that, much to the defense of my other colleagues here on the
committee, I guess the only question I have is can you - I'm trying
desperately to think, but I can not think of another state in which
the executive branch and the legislative branch are separated by a
distance of (indisc.) miles. Am I missing something in the
experience of other states that suggest that maybe they ought to be
together.
Number 1964
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN responded, "No, I think just like we will
drift off into the fact that we need two bodies of (indisc.)
legislature. I won't get into that donny brook either. I think by
convention we have grown up with the fact that the capital is where
the legislature moves - lives and does their work. But Alaska, as
we all know is a very unique state as I mentioned. I don't know of
any other state that you have to go so far to get to the capital.
No, they don't normally and wouldn't have in the, early stages of
the majority of the states in the nation, have the ability to
converse as freely as we do now. But on one hand, we say it's all
right to have the capital located remotely from it's citizens and
they can somehow get here. We say we shouldn't have it dislocated
from the governor. I submit to you, as you heard earlier, that the
governor and nearly all, if not all of the commissioners, are in
Anchorage during the session as well as during the interim. A
significant number of the state employees are also located up
there. I don't think you'll find that in other states either where
you have such a dispropondent number of state employees outside the
state capital. So, we're unique in Alaska and yes, you're right,
it would be another uniqueness of the state."
Number 4007
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said, I guess that when you say that we're
unique and the fact that preponderance operations elsewhere, I mean
I just remind you of Salem, Oregon and Olympia, Washington,
Sacramento, California. I mean I think there are other examples
which it does work where the legislative body and the executive
branch are separated from the preponderance population."
Number 4030
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN responded that he thinks that's true. He said
you can get to Salem, Oregon and most parts of Oregon in a couple
of hours. That's not true in Alaska. You can drive to your
capital while they are not in the major metropolitan areas that
would be here. They're certainly far more accessible.
Number 4100
CHAIR JAMES said having recognized and looked at the capital
situations all around the country, historically, the capitals are
not in the center of the population. She said when you have a
capitol building, generally it doesn't grow like other areas. It's
prohibited from growing because it is housed with state government
employees. It doesn't lend itself to industry and all the other
kinds of things. She stated that's a progressive thing. Chair
James said, "If you look at all the capitals in the other states,
you'll find the place where the capital is an insignificant place
-- which, incidently, is one of the issues of the state of Alaska
and the people wanted to deal with and they didn't want to have the
capital in Fairbanks or Anchorage and chose to have it somewhere
else where it wouln't be insignificant, where you could concentrate
on the state of Alaska. The whole issue is around money. So I had
to say that because it's not that we put the capital where there
isn't any people living. It is that people don't do the same
things in a capital that they do in other towns. Quite frankly,
Fairbanks doesn't want one. So, I want to put that on the record
right now. We don't want the capital and all of the associated
things that go (indisc.). You'd never notice it was there."
Number 4221
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said, "I certainly concur with that and the
consideration when they were going to think about moving the
capital, was to an area certainly that this is very very remote -
small outside the city. But again, I remind you it was only an
hours commute from the majority of the people. And that's not
unusual in other states and, yes, the economics destroyed that.
And I also want to reiterate, because I know there was a poll taken
by an Anchorage television station, talking about this bill which
is going to try and move the capital. That, again, is not the
issue. It's not the capital, just the legislature convening."
Number 4304
BRAD PIERCE, Senior Policy Analyst, Office of Management and
Budget, Office of the Governor, came before the committee to
testify. He said the Governor doesn't support this HB 304 at all.
The seed of government is in Juneau. It would be expensive and
wasteful to move the legislature to Anchorage. Mr. Pierce pointed
out that he has worked for the past three governors and he believes
he has compiled a fiscal note about five times. He explained that
they took the figures prepared for Senator Phillips two years ago
and added some inflation. He said the fiscal note has consistently
come in at about $2.5 million to $3 million net cost to the state
to move the legislature. Mr. Pierce said in the past, every time
they have turned in the fiscal notes, the sponsor has gotten his
own fiscal note through Legislative Finance.
Number 4436
CHAIR JAMES said recently she received information from Legislative
Budget and Audit of all the travel expenses for commissioners, et
cetera. She referred to the calculation of the fiscal note and
asked Mr. Pierce if he subtracted the other expenses of going from
Juneau to Anchorage. In other words, is that on top of what is
already being spent or would some of it replace some of the
spending that is currently occurring.
Number 4508
MR. PIERCE explained it is a net figure. He said the travel that
is already being done is factored in. He pointed out that the
Department of Natural Resources had a zero fiscal note because
there are already people in Anchorage. Mr. Pierce said the
Department of Corrections had a very low fiscal note. He said the
reality of it is that the administrators spend most of their time
in Juneau.
Number 4554
CHAIR JAMES said there isn't a number as to what the general public
pays to get to Juneau as opposed to the cost if they went to
Anchorage. She stated that we don't know how much the public is
paying compared to what the government pays. She said there is no
estimate.
MR. PIERCE indicated there isn't an estimate.
TAPE 98-7, SIDE A
Number 0001
DENNIS EGAN, Mayor, City and Borough of Juneau came before the
committee to testify. He read his statement into the record.
"On behalf the assembly and the citizens of the City and Borough of
Juneau, I want to thank you for allowing me to testify this morning
because our community is very appreciative of the positive impacts
our state legislature makes on our community and on our region.
"I hope that you'll appreciate the advances in Alaska's capital
city has made in providing opportunities of access to all residents
of the state.
"Since statehood in 1959, just 38 short years ago, Juneau has been
in a unique position of trying to focus not only on looking at the
critical elements of sustainability, economic vitality, social
equity, and environmental health, but single issue a few other
committees in the nation, or for that matter the free world face,
and that is the issue of being the ultimate distruction of our city
through the ballot process by way of a vote in the statewide
electorate.
"Eight times since statehood Juneau has faced economic and social
upheavals that normal communities would not face. But with
dedication and diligence we've had to confront this issue with
absolutely no idea what the outcome would be, regarding our basic
economic and social vitality.
"The issue here is moving the seed of state government to an area
outside Juneau where some say is a location that is closer to the
people. While we've ultimately won all those battles, the most
recent in 1994, these votes take a tremendous toll on the citizens
of our community who have lived here for any length of time. When
we should be attending to make Juneau a model for sustainable
development, we have had to spend untold resources on fighting
efforts to change the seed of state government in the state of
Alaska. In just the past two elections, 1982 and again in 1994,
and associated ballot initiative battles, it has cost our community
of 32,000 residents, since statehood, over $7 million in taxpayer
and community donated funds to fight these battles. So when folks
in the rest of the United States talk about sustainability, we here
in Juneau call it 'survivability.'
"To sustain Juneau as the capital of Alaska we're accomplishing
many things, I think, to make our city more accessible to the rest
of Alaska and to the world.
Number 0247
"You see I believe that access comes in many other ways than an
interstate highway. We were one of the first communities on the
West Coast of the United states to recognize the importance of the
Internet. We were one of the first to establish a home page on the
Worldwide Web, affording access not only to Alaskans to their
capital city, but to anyone in the world with inquiries about our
community.
"We've been instrumental in providing electronic access to video
teleconferencing through a major investment in telecommunications
technology. This technology allows citizens from throughout Alaska
to travel electronically instead of by air to conduct meetings of
state government, the state legislature and local governments
without ever leaving the confines of their local communities.
"Juneau is a major investor in C-SPAN type programming called Gavel
to Gavel, here today, that allows over 400,000 Alaskans in the
state, about 80 percent of the adult population, to view
uninterrupted coverage of the daily deliberations of the Alaska
State Legislature during you 120 day sessions.
Number 0349
"With the largest and least visible issue to accessability and
sustainability to our committee most recently is now approaching
from the air, and more than likely will have tremendous advances by
March. The CBJ (City and Borough of Juneau), the FAA (Federal
Aviation Administration), the Nation Center for Atmospheric
Research and Alaska Airlines are in the midst of a multimillion
dollar research project that is going ultimately change the way
airline travel is accomplished throughout the world. Juneau is at
the forefront of development and implementation of this technology
in which aircraft will not travel routes, as you know them now, but
on courses dictated by global positioning satellites. They're now
in the final testing here in Juneau and will ultimately be approved
for commercial aviation worldwide. Because of this technology
being developed here in Juneau, airports and the skies we fly
throughout the world will see dramatic increases in safety and
efficiencies. This technology also uses an enhanced ground
proximity warning system originally developed for the cruse missile
and used so accurately during the Gulf War in the Middle East. The
system allows a pilot of an aircraft to know exactly what the
terrain is in the flight path of the airliner. Needless to say, in
Alaska this is extremely important. The ultimate result in Juneau
alone will be landing minimum being lowered dramatically, 331 feet
versus 3,500 feet, while making us not only one of safest airports
in Alaska, but one of the safest airport in the world for aircraft
approaches and departures.
"We're doing many other things to make Juneau a better capital from
increasing affordable housing, lowering our housing vacancy rate,
getting a handle on managing our burgeoning tourism industry,
working with mining concerns to bring their projects online - even
initiating a vision plan for our city that includes Juneau
remaining the state capital.
"While these are just a few of the projects that we're undertaking
and issues that we're confronting. I believe we're making great
strides in making Juneau a better capital city for all Alaskans."
Number 0554
MR. EGAN said, "I am personally, and I know 99 percent of
Juneauites are very proud of the men and women that work in this
building that represent not only my community, but communities from
throughout the state and we're very proud of your tireless efforts
to make Alaska a better state."
Number 0621
CHAIR JAMES announced her position has been neutral on this issue.
She said according to information in the committee file, people of
her district voted against the capital move in the previous
election. She pointed out that it is a matter of money with her
constituents. It isn't that they wouldn't like to have the capital
closer, but it is a matter of money. She noted they don't want to
have the capital in Fairbanks. Chair James informed Mayor Egan she
has been a big supporter of University of Alaska, Southeast. She
said, "You're located in a place where you could have world class
in oceanography and marine biology and those other issues. I think
that you ought to push for those things. And I guess my advice to
you is don't just be centered on that the capital staying here is
what's going to keep you alive because there is a lot of other
things to do it. In other words, put your eggs in more than one
basket."
Number 0746
MR. EGAN responded, "We're putting our eggs in more than one
basket, Madam Chair. In fact you brought up the -- in fact we are
in the process - in the formative stages of constructing a world
class research facility from NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration) - that their project cost would be $78 million and
the university's cost is projected at $22 million."
Number 0811
CHAIR JAMES said it is a problem. She pointed out that Gavel to
Gavel is finally being heard now on cable in Fairbanks. Last year
it wasn't. She noted a lot of people who don't have cable still
don't get Gavel to Gavel. Chair James said it is interesting that
in Alaska where there is a closer contact with government than is
experienced in any other state, we're still not happy about it.
She pointed out there are LIO offices throughout the state. Other
states don't have those kinds of communication, including
teleconferences, experiences what we have. She said, "This issue
is not going to go away. There is a sizable amount of the public
that really doesn't like to have the capital in Juneau. So I
understand the people in your city when they voted down spending
the money or taxing themselves to build a capital building. That's
an issue that's not going to be easily sold because that threat --
this bill that's in this committee today is not the last threat
that you're going to hear on this. And so I understand that that
does cause us a problem and the more people that we get in the
Interior, and we're about crowded up down here so I don't know how
many more people we can get down in Southeast, the scale is going
to be tipped the other way. So my advice, again, is diversify and
be sure you got your bases covered."
Number 1100
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated he personally appreciates the efforts
that Juneau has made to make it a pleasant place to live. He said
everything the city has done has been noticed by him.
Representative Dyson said, "I will vote to move the legislature to
Anchorage for, hopefully, public and personal reasons. But I'm
very impressed with what you all have done and you're to be
commended for it."
Number 1143
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said, "I think you touched upon an issue that
we all ought to be concerned about, the diversification of not just
the local economies and community economies, but the
diversification of the state economy as well. And I mean I just
want to emphasize -- I think what you were saying was that
(indisc.) colleagues in Juneau have as well as the city council and
assembly members in Fairbanks and assembly members in Anchorage and
Kenai. I think one of the frustrating things that Juneau has
always felt is that instead of diverting the resources that we've
had on efforts where we just redivide the existing pie. If we had
all concentrated on expanding the pie instead we'd all be better
off. (Indisc.) felt significantly here in Juneau. I think it's
probably shared in Fairbanks - the issue of programs moving from
the Fairbanks campus to other campuses come up. I think we all
share those kinds of frustrations when instead of concentrating on
what we can do to make everything better and the pie get bigger, we
have to spend an awful lot of time making sure that the slice of
pie remains the same."
CHAIR JAMES said here were no further witnesses to testify on HB
304. She indicated HB 304 would be held for further consideration
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1325
CHAIR JAMES adjourned the House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting at 9:52 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|