02/12/1998 08:02 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 12, 1998
8:02 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jeannette James, Chair
Representative Ivan Ivan, Vice Chairman
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
Representative Fred Dyson
Representative Kim Elton
Representative Mark Hodgins
Representative Al Vezey
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE BILL 214(STA)
"An Act relating to the possession of a concealed deadly weapon by
peace officers and by chief administrative officers of municipal
police departments; relating to the definition of police officer;
and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSSB 214(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HOUSE BILL 259
"An Act relating to the maintenance of voter lists and to the
inactivation and cancellation of voter registration; and providing
for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 259 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 50
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to a public corporation established to manage the
permanent fund.
- MOVED HJR 50 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL 81
"An Act relating to the members of the board and staff of the
Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation."
- MOVED HB 81 OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL 105(FIN) AM
"An Act relating to legislative and executive branch ethics;
relating to campaign finances for candidates for state office;
relating to the conduct and regulation of lobbyists with respect to
public officials; relating to the filing of disclosures by certain
state employees and officials; making a conforming amendment to the
definition of `public official' for employment security statutes;
and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD; ASSIGNED TO SUBCOMMITTEE
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 214
SHORT TITLE: PEACE OFFICERS/CONCEALED WEAPONS
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) MILLER, GREEN, KELLY
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/12/98 2166 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/2/98
01/12/98 2166 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/12/98 2166 (S) STA
01/20/98 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
01/20/98 (S) MINUTE(STA)
01/21/98 (S) RLS AT 11:25 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
01/21/98 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
01/21/98 2250 (S) STA RPT CS 5DP NEW TITLE
01/21/98 2251 (S) DP: GREEN, DUNCAN, MILLER, MACKIE,
WARD
01/21/98 2251 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE TO SB & CS (DPS)
01/23/98 2276 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE TO CS (ADM)
01/22/98 2261 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 1/22/98
01/22/98 2266 (S) HELD TO 1/26/98
01/26/98 2301 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
01/26/98 2301 (S) STA CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
01/26/98 2301 (S) AM NO 1 OFFERED BY ADAMS
01/26/98 2301 (S) AM NO 1 FAILED Y3 N13 E4
01/26/98 2303 (S) AM NO 2 OFFERED BY LINCOLN
01/26/98 2303 (S) AM NO 2 FAILED Y2 N14 E4
01/26/98 2305 (S) AM NO 3 NOT OFFERED
01/26/98 2305 (S) AM NO 4 OFFERED BY LINCOLN
01/26/98 2305 (S) AM NO 4 FAILED Y2 N14 E4
01/26/98 2307 (S) ADVANCE TO 3RD RDG FLD Y14 N2 E4
01/26/98 2307 (S) THIRD READING 1/27 CALENDAR
01/27/98 2319 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 214(STA)
01/27/98 2319 (S) PASSED Y18 N- E2
01/27/98 2319 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE
01/27/98 2321 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
01/28/98 2148 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/28/98 2148 (H) STATE AFFAIRS
02/12/98 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 259
SHORT TITLE: VOTER LISTS & VOTER REGISTRATION
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
04/22/97 1267 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/22/97 1267 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE
04/22/97 1267 (H) FISCAL NOTE (GOV)
04/22/97 1267 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
02/12/98 Text (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HJR 50
SHORT TITLE: PERMANENT FUND PUBLIC CORPORATION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) JAMES, Vezey
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/21/98 2099 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/21/98 2099 (H) STA, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
01/29/98 Text (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/12/98 Text (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 81
SHORT TITLE: PERMANENT FUND BOARD MEMBERS & STAFF
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) JAMES
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/22/97 122 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/22/97 122 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE
02/20/97 Text (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/20/97 Text (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/25/97 Text (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/25/97 Text (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/06/97 Text (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/06/97 Text (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/27/97 Text (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/27/97 Text (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/12/98 Text (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: SB 105
SHORT TITLE: ETHICS/LOBBYING/CAMPAIGN FINANCE
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF LEGISLATIVE ETHICS COMMITTEE
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/25/97 494 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/25/97 494 (S) STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE
03/26/97 873 (S) STA RPT CS 3DP NEW TITLE
03/26/97 873 (S) DP: GREEN, MILLER, WARD
03/26/97 873 (S) FISCAL NOTE TO SB (ADM)
03/26/97 873 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE TO SB (LAA)
03/26/97 873 (S) FISCAL NOTE TO CS (ADM)
04/16/97 1163 (S) FIN RPT CS 2DP 5NR NEW TITLE
04/16/97 1163 (S) DP: PEARCE; DP IF AM: PHILLIPS
04/16/97 1163 (S) NR: SHARP, PARNELL, ADAMS, TORGERSON,
04/16/97 1163 (S) DONLEY
04/16/97 1163 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN APPLIES (LAA)
04/16/97 1163 (S) ZERO FNS TO CS (LABOR, LAW)
04/16/97 1163 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN APPLIES (LAA)
04/18/97 1276 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR & 1NR 4/18/97
04/18/97 1279 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/18/97 1279 (S) FIN CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
04/18/97 1280 (S) AM NO 1 OFFERED AND WITHDRAWN
04/18/97 1281 (S) AM NO 2 FAILED Y4 N13 E3
04/18/97 1282 (S) AM NO 3 FAILED Y4 N13 E3
04/18/97 1283 (S) AMENDMENTS 4, 5 NOT OFFERED
04/18/97 1283 (S) AM NO 6 ADOPTED Y12 N5 E3
04/18/97 1285 (S) AM NO 7 FAILED Y7 N10 E3
04/18/97 1286 (S) AM NO 8 FAILED Y5 N12 E3
04/18/97 1287 (S) AM NO 9 ADOPTED Y17 N- E3
04/18/97 1291 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
CONSENT
04/18/97 1291 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 105(FIN) AM
04/18/97 1292 (S) PASSED Y15 N2 E3
04/18/97 1292 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE
04/18/97 1292 (S) LINCOLN NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
04/21/97 1334 (S) RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD READING
04/21/97 1335 (S) RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 10 UNAN
CONSENT
04/21/97 1335 (S) AM NO 10 ADOPTED Y14 N5 E1
04/21/97 1336 (S) AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD READING
04/21/97 1337 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y17 N2 E1
04/21/97 1337 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE
04/21/97 1370 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/22/97 1232 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/22/97 1233 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE
02/12/98 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
PORTIA PARKER, Legislative Assistant
to Senator Mike Miller
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 107
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4711
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf on Senator Miller,
sponsor of SB 214.
LEONARD ABEL, Ph.D. Program Administrator
Community Mental Health Service
Division of Mental Health and
Developmental Disabilities
Department of Health and Social Services
P.O. Box 110620
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0620
Telephone: (907) 465-3370
POSITION STATEMENT: Suggested SB 214 be amended.
JAYNE ANDREEN, Executive Director
Council on Domestic Violence and
Sexual Assault
Department of Public Safety
P.O. Box 111200
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Telephone: (907) 465-4356
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 214.
DEL SMITH, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Public Safety
P.O. Box 111200
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Telephone: (907) 465-4362
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 214.
DENNY WEATHERS
c/o P.O. 1791
Cordova, Alaska 99574
Telephone: (907)424-3745
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 214, supported SB 141 [1997].
ERIC WEATHERS
c/o P.O. 1791
Cordova, Alaska 99574
Telephone: (907)424-3745
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 214.
CHARLES BRANCH
P.O. Box 1692
Cordova, Alaska 99574
Telephone: (907) 424-3894
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 214.
GAIL FENUMIAI, Election Coordinator
Division of Elections
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
P.O. Box 110017
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Telephone: (907) 465-4611
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 259.
KATHLEEN STRASBAUGH, Assistant
Attorney General
Civil Division
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Telephone: (907) 465-3600
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 259.
PATRICK LOUNSBURY, Legislative Secretary
to Representative James
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 102
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3743
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of Representative James,
sponsor of HJR 50.
BEN BROWN, Legislative Administrative
Assistant to Senator Kelly
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 101
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4823
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on SB 105.
GARY BADER, citizen and Chairman
of the State Personnel Board
10701 Glazanof Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99516
Telephone: (907) 346-2719
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 105.
SUZIE BARNETT,
Legislative Ethics Committee
P.O. Box 101468
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
Telephone: (907) 258-8172
POSITION STATEMENT: Available to answer questions on SB 105.
JOE DONAHUE, Member of the
Legislative Ethics Committee Office
P.O. Box 1736
Kenai, Alaska 99611
Telephone: (907) 283-8051
POSITION STATEMENT: Available to answer question on SB 105.
MIKE MCMULLEN, Manager
Division of Personnel
Department of Administration
P.O. Box 110201
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Telephone: (907) 465-4431
POSITION STATEMENT: Present to testify on Executive Branch Ethics
Act on SB 105.
STEVEN (NEIL) SLOTNICK, Assistant
Attorney General
Commercial Section
Department of Law
P.O. Box 11030
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Telephone: (907) 465-3600
POSITION STATEMENT: Present to testify on executive branch portion
of SB 105.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 98-16, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:02 a.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives James, Ivan, Dyson, Hodgins and
Vezey. Representatives Berkowitz and Elton arrived at 9:00 a.m.
CSSB 214(STA) - PEACE OFFICERS/CONCEALED WEAPONS
Number 0010
CHAIR JAMES announced the first order of business is CSSB 214(STA),
"An Act relating to the possession of a concealed deadly weapon by
peace officers and by chief administrative officers of municipal
police departments; relating to the definition of police officer;
and providing for an effective date," sponsored by Senator Mike
Miller.
Number 0018
PORTIA PARKER, Legislative Assistant to Senator Mike Miller,
testified on behalf of Senator Miller. She said Senators Miller
and Green introduced SB 214 to correct an amendment, which was
proposed by the Alaska Peace Officers Association, and adopted into
SB 141 last year. The impact of that amendment was not realized
until after the bill had passed and was sent to the Governor. It
was neither the intent of the Peace Officers Association, nor the
intent of the sponsors that that would be the effect in regard to
police officers, chiefs of police, and law enforcement officers.
MS. PARKER stated SB 214 corrects the amendment which requires
peace officers to carry concealed [weapons], both on and off duty,
to be certified by the Alaska Police Standards Council. She
indicated there are law enforcement officers that are on probation
for their first year, are not yet certified, and do not fall under
the exemption. Those officers would now have to obtain a concealed
handgun permit before they could carry on or off the job.
Number 0075
LEONARD ABEL, Ph.D., Program Administrator, Community Mental Health
Service, Division of Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities,
Department of Health and Social Services, testified before the
committee. He said he would like the committee to consider a
possible amendment.
MR. ABEL indicated he is a supporter of concealed carry and has a
permit. He is also a mental health professional and the Community
Mental Health Service's Program Administrator for the state. You
cannot at the time of the application, or five years prior to that,
have a mental illness as defined in AS 47.30.915. Mental illness
means an organic mental or emotional impairment that has
substantial adverse effect on an individual's ability to exercise
conscientious control of the individual's actions or ability to
perceive reality, or to reason, or to understand. A minor problem
like nail biting is not going to constitute a mental illness under
that definition.
MR. ABEL pointed out the effect of SB 141, in the recent veto
override, is to delete that language and adopt a federal standard
that says that you cannot have a concealed carry permit if you have
ever been committed. Most people that have a severe mental
illness, that comes to the attention of the authorities, are not
committed because our statutes allow you to voluntarily enter a
hospital, or a treatment program and avoid the commitment process.
Mr. Abel said he believes SB 141 created a situation where very ill
individuals may apply for and receive a concealed carry permit.
That concerns him.
Number 0141
MR. ABEL said if you had an illness that was severe, you had to
wait at least five years before you could apply. If you had an
incurable mental illness like schizophrenia or bi-polar disorder
[manic depressive], you are barred for life from getting that
permit. Those illnesses that (indisc.) very unstable - very
quickly if you go off medication. The total bar does not bother
him. He noted that he did not believe it is necessarily a severe
(indisc.) violation of rights.
MR. ABEL said, "What the original language did was allow, one case
so far, a very ill person to be denied a permit. When this
individual notified a relative that he had applied, he said he
believed he was being controlled by malevolent forces, he needed
that gun to protect himself from these imagined evil forces.
Consequently, his relative notified the Department of Public Safety
and the permit was denied." Mr. Abel suggested SB 214 be amended
to restore the original mental health language.
Number 0182
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON asked if there is a record of patients
having submitted themselves for treatment that Public Safety
offices could avail themselves of.
MR. ABEL replied no, confidentiality laws would not permit it, it
would have to surface like the incident mentioned. A lot of cases
would not come to the attention under normal circumstances.
Number 0198
REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY suggested this subject be addressed in a
separate bill. He said, "I think we have an obligation, in light
of the fact that we overrode a governor's veto on a bill to move
this correction forward as expeditiously as possible. Amending it
unnecessarily would definitely delay that process by a period of
several weeks at a minimum...."
CHAIR JAMES said she was the first person to put the concealed
carry issue on the table. She said we have struggled with the
issues of mental health and the fear of guns. The fear of someone,
who is mentally disabled, having a concealed handgun is going to be
a problem. According to federal law, that person could have a gun.
Not allowing them to have a concealed handgun does not necessarily
mean that they cannot have one. She noted she is familiar with the
case Mr. Abel mentioned and said she would be happy to discuss his
concern in a separate provision.
Number 0251
JAYNE ANDREEN, Executive Director, Council on Domestic Violence and
Sexual Assault, Department of Public Safety, testified before the
committee to express the council's concern with SB 141 and the
impact that it would have on domestic violence victims. The
Governor's Domestic Violence Summit met in Alaska in December.
National leaders from around the country attended to help access
how Alaska is doing in terms of its statutory and practical
responses to domestic violence.
MS. ANDREEN said Alaska has gone a long way with the Domestic
Violence Act of 1996 in establishing 85 percent of the national
model code. The council is taking a serious look at the full
gambit of crimes that impact domestic violence victims and
recognizing them as such. A concern is SB 141 adopted language
that references federal statutes in terms of defining what a
domestic violence history and crime is. She said it seriously
eliminates a number of domestic violence offenses that were
acknowledged, recognized and prosecuted. All misdemeanor crimes of
domestic violence now are not considered part of the criteria that
must be looked at in the criminal history in terms of being
eligible for a concealed handgun permit. A number of relationships
that constitute domestic violence are no longer covered because
they are not recognized by federal guidelines. This is non-spousal
relationships, or relationships where there is not a common child
and eliminates all dating domestic violence.
MS. ANDREEN indicated it also eliminates Alaska's emergency and ex
parte orders as being accepted for those that are eligible for a
concealed handgun permit. She said we realize that emergency in
particular ex parte orders are very important tools for victims
seeking protection. A significant number of the protective orders
issued are under the emergency and ex parte process. The council
is also concerned about the exclusionary language which limits the
prohibition of bringing concealed handguns into domestic violence
shelters. Many people think "shelters" is the term for a domestic
violence program. There are programs in Alaska that operate as a
safe home program and do not provide the residential services and
do not meet the definition of the shelter.
Number 0306
DEL SMITH, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Public Safety came
before the committee. He stated he worked with the Alaska Peace
Officers Association and the Alaska Association of Police Chiefs to
address the "cop problem" in SB 141. Senate Bill 214, "cop fix-
it," needs to be in effect before SB 141 or the problem of
disarming 100 police officers will come about. He noted the
language regarding domestic violence, the mentally ill, and
indicted felons changed substantially. Mr. Smith said, "Although
I'd like to see some other changes in this bill, I realize that by
adding amendments and slowing it down, it might not do what it
needs to do." The Alaska Peace Officers Association, and the
Alaska Association of Chiefs of Police all agreed SB 214 fixes the
problem.
Number 0331
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated prior to passing the concealed weapon
carry law back in 1994, it was not legal for peace officers to
carry under many circumstances. There was never prosecution, it
was always assumed that the law authorizing them to be peace
officers, to carry a weapon, and to use legal force superseded the
laws against carrying. He said, "What I'm referring to is when a
police officer was out of their jurisdiction, or off duty in a
place serving alcoholic beverages." That was not the legislative
intent, when we passed the laws against carrying concealed weapons,
to exempt police officers.
MR. SMITH replied he is correct, you could carry in the course of
your employment. However, some departments wanted officers to
carry weapons at all times, should something occur. He said, "It
was very hazy as to whether, for instance as an Anchorage police
officer, I could go to Fairbanks, off duty, and carry my concealed
weapon and still be legal. I don't know if there was ever any
prosecutions on any of those. If I went to Fairbanks and, of
course in a prisoner pickup, or some investigation, clearly I was
in my line of duty so I don't think that was ever an issue." There
are a number of officers, when they hire on, who do not become
certified until they have had at least a year to 14 months to be
certified. There are also a number of police officers in this
state that are not required to be certified. SB 214 takes
"certified" out.
Number 0395
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN believes the bill was triggered by a
number of police entities in the state, including the University of
Alaska. He indicated they were not allowed to carry off the job
because their interpretation of the law was that it was illegal.
Number 0393
REPRESENTATIVE MARK HODGINS made a motion to move CSSB 214(STA)
from the committee with individual recommendations and attached
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSSB 214(STA) moved from
the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
CHAIR JAMES was interrupted by a person on teleconference who
wanted to testify. Chair James stated that she was not notified SB
214 was being teleconferenced, but said she would accept testimony.
Number 0405
DENNY WEATHERS testified from Cordova. First she stated she had no
problems with SB 214. The January 14, letter to Senator Mike
Miller from Mr. Smith indicated persons indicted for a felony will
not be precluded from obtaining a permit. If a person had a
felony, most type of felonies, you could not have a firearm.
Number 0417
MS. PARKER replied part of that is accurate, you would have to have
been convicted of a felony, not charged or indicted. If you are
convicted of a felony, there is a prohibition on possession of
firearms under federal law and under state law for ten years.
MS. WEATHERS asked if that would apply to police officers as well.
She question if "persons" means everyday citizens or peace
officers.
MS. PARKER replied everybody falls under that same rule in regard
to conviction of a felony.
Number 0430
MS. WEATHERS asked if persons indicted for a felony will not be
precluded, were they precluded before.
MS. PARKER responded she was not sure.
Number 0436
MS. WEATHERS suggested the committee check into that and asked Ms.
Parker to explain the wording, "Persons convicted of some
misdemeanor, domestic violence crimes, will not be precluded from
obtaining a permit." She questioned the meaning of the word
"some".
Number 0440
MS. PARKER said, "You mean it is applied equally to police officer
and other individuals who are not peace officers."
MS. WEATHERS indicated police officers that have had domestic
violence claims can still work and carry a weapon, other citizens
would be precluded. Subsistence hunters, that have to carry a
firearm to get their food every day, are precluded from having a
firearm. She asked again what "some" meant. "Persons convicted of
'some' misdemeanor domestic violence crimes will not be precluded."
She said she would like to see it apply equally.
Number 0449
MS. PARKER said it was her understanding that it was applied
equally. She stated, "When they are talking about 'some' - a
misdemeanor crime of domestic violence definition under federal law
is different than under state law, and what was incorporated in SB
141 was the federal law definition. So it didn't include every
situation and every misdemeanor crime that's covered under state
law, so that's where the change was made."
MS. WEATHERS indicated concealed firearms will not be prohibited
from domestic violence shelters that are not state funded
facilities. She asked if a sign could still be posted.
Number 0468
MS. PARKER replied that is correct. This leaves it up to them on
whether they want to prohibit firearms within their home or
community center, their church, or whatever, rather than the state
dictating to them that they must prohibit firearms. It is also up
to them on whether they want to post and have no firearms.
MS. WEATHERS said the only difference is a state facility would
ban.
MS. PARKER replied that is correct.
MS. WEATHERS asked if a state facility could have a police officer
with a firearm. She said it would be silly to make it a total ban.
MS. PARKER pointed out there is an exemption that allows the
administrator, of the facility, to give written approval if someone
wishes to carry a handgun in the facility.
Number 0487
MS. WEATHERS noted SB 141 had that exemption, but SB 214 does not.
"Concealed firearms will not be prohibited in domestic violence
shelters that are not state funded or in a facility of any domestic
violence program." She indicated that was confusing and was
satisfied with the old version.
Number 0500
CHAIR JAMES suggested Ms. Weathers specifically contact Ms. Parker.
MS. WEATHERS asked Chair James if police officers were required to
get a permit to carry off the job.
CHAIR JAMES replied they are required to get a permit at this time.
MS. WEATHERS stressed she would like the bill to stay the way it
was.
CHAIR JAMES stated SB 141 is already law, everything that has been
made into law will stay except the one provision where police
officers were not included.
Number 0528
ERIC WEATHERS testified via teleconference. He said peace officers
should have to obtain a permit to carry concealed as everybody else
does.
Number 0533
CHARLES BRANCH testified via teleconference. He understands this
corrects a glitch offered by the Alaska Peace Officers Association.
CHAIR JAMES replied that is correct.
MR. BRANCH indicated he would like to see it remain that peace
officers are not to be above the law, and remain consistent with
the general citizenry.
Number 0550
CHAIR JAMES noted public testimony was completed and indicated CSSB
214(STA) moved from the State Affairs Standing Committee earlier in
the meeting.
HB 259 - VOTER LISTS & VOTER REGISTRATION
CHAIR JAMES announced the next order of business is HB 259, "An Act
relating to the maintenance of voter lists and to the inactivation
and cancellation of voter registration; and providing for an
effective date," Rules by request of the governor.
Number 0558
GAIL FENUMIAI, Election Coordinator, Division of Elections, Office
of the Lieutenant Governor, testified before the committee. She
said, since implementation of the National Voter Registration Act
in 1993, the Division of Elections has not been able to conduct
list maintenance on the voter list. She indicated the numbers have
been growing, the list has inaccurate addresses and contains names
of people who are no longer in the state. She mentioned the
National Voter Registration Act does not allow the division to
remove voters solely on the purpose for non-voting.
MS. FENUMIAI pointed out legislation was passed in 1996 by the
Alaska State Legislature in an attempt to bring our state law into
compliance with federal law. She said, "When we submitted the law
for preclearance, the Department of Justice implied that it had
some problematic areas with that as far as the National Voter
Registration Act. They felt the law just targeted non-voters as a
reason for removing people. This bill [HB 259] will expand the
group of people that we will be sending notices to, it's basically
no contact, people who have not contacted the division."
Number 0573
MS. FENUMIAI said the Division of Elections would like to, in the
first year, send notices to all registered voters, both on the
active and inactive lists to get clean addresses. This would be
beneficial to the division and will save money over time, and as
far as printing official election pamphlets, ballots, election
supplies, candidates would also save money on mailing lists. She
said, "We know that some of the addresses that are provided to the
candidates, people aren't there anymore and it costs. Public
perception also, those people who are on our list as active voters
that don't vote because they are no longer here. Our voter
statistics, our voter turnout seems to get lower each year because
of those facts."
MS. FENUMIAI stated all registered voters would be mailed a
confirmation and address card. And the registration records, of
all those who returned their cards with updated information, would
be updated in our voter registration system and new voter
identification cards would be sent to them if needed. She said,
"The cards that were going to be returned by postal service with a
new address, those folks would then be sent a second notice which
is mandated by the federal law to confirm their new address. They
would have 45 days to respond to that second notice. If they did
not respond to that second notice they would be placed on an
inactive list for the next two federal general elections. And if
there was no voter contact during that period, the voter then would
be deleted. If there was contact, the voter then would become
activated and would remain on the roll. Voters responding to the
second notice accordingly their records would be updated as well."
MS. FENUMIAI said federal law also requires that the postage for
this is paid by the state so there is no cost to the voter. She
mentioned the majority of the cost in the fiscal note is printing
the notices and postage.
Number 0607
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Ms. Fenumiai to explain the benefits to
the state of Alaska. He said, "There is no question the United
States Justice Department, when it comes to voters rights is out in
left field. The last ten years, the United States Supreme Court
has been pounding them into the ground on (indisc.) they have been
giving states. At some point, before we start going out and
spending a half million bucks here, and a half million bucks there,
somebody should consider the cost of benefit ratio of just taking
the Justice Department to court. Because the Supreme Court is not
upholding their guidelines that they are putting out. They're
mandating who (indisc.) law to use the guidelines that you follow.
Now I would go as far as to say the Voters Rights Act has gone
beyond the constitutional authority of the federal government to
dictate to the states how it conducts elections. Based on
considerable amount of experience with the Justice Department,
regarding the Voters Rights Act, I think we're just throwing money
down the drain here. I do agree that the law we passed, and I
think it was in 1995, maybe 1996, I was adamantly opposed to that
then and I remain opposed to it. There is an alternative and
that's to go to court to defend your rights against a Justice
Department which has got a terrible record before the Supreme Court
over the last ten years."
Number 0626
MS. FENUMIAI deferred to the Department of Law.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY repeated what is the advantage of the state of
Alaska in passing HB 259, because the justice department said so is
like taking the Fifth Amendment.
MS. FENUMIAI believed the benefits to having accurate lists would
improve public perception of our voter lists because they are
inaccurate. People who are on the active voter lists, are out of
the state. and do not vote, count toward the total number of
registered voters so voter turn out is lower because they are not
here to vote. Money would be saved to the Division of Elections
over time in printing less official election pamphlets. Ms.
Fenumiai indicated some ballots are returned in the mail. If they
are able to remove people from the lists, they would be able to
print less ballots, and order less election supplies.
MS. FENUMIAI concluded, "The public would be saving, when the list
is purchased by private companies, by candidates for campaign
purposes, for political purposes. We know that there are bad
addresses on there and you would be saving money in printing and
postage as well."
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked who besides political candidates use
voter registration lists.
MS. FENUMIAI replied there are numerous private companies that
purchase their lists for a variety of reasons, commercial reasons.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked are they willing to pay to clean up the
list.
MS. FENUMIAI stated she did not know.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said improving our percentage of voter turn
out seems to be a nebulous goal, he believes Alaska has the highest
percentage in the nation right now. Representative Vezey asked who
are we trying to beat.
Number 0655
MS. FENUMIAI answered, "We looked back over the voter turn out over
the years and when the list was more manageable, when it was in a
more accurate state, voter turn out was high 60s, low 70s. We
experienced last general election, a turn out of about 59 percent,
which we felt would have increased a fair amount if our lists had,
if the inactive and people who are just no longer in the state that
cannot vote are off the list then that number would drop and it
would increase the voter turn out percentage."
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked what is the benefit to Alaskans if we
increase our percentage report of voter turn out.
MS. FENUMIAI believed, if people see that there is low voter turn
out, it might discourage people from voting.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked why do we need to fund extra money to do
this if we are going to save money.
MS. FENUMIAI said, "We don't have exact figures on how much money
would be saved. We know that over time we would be printing less
official election pamphlets, we would be having to order less
ballots - I don't have concrete hard numbers on those."
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY indicated he was not convinced of this
legislation [HB 259].
Number 0678
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN mentioned his main concern was in purging names
from the voters lists, he asked how inactive must a voter be to be
removed from the list.
MS. FENUMIAI replied the division hopes to send a confirmation
notice to everybody that is registered. In subsequent years, the
division will send a confirmation notice to individuals whose mail
has been returned as undeliverable in the preceding two years,
those who have not contacted the division, to inquire about their
voters' registration, to request a new voter identification card,
have not signed an initiative petition, have not applied to vote by
absentee, and also those who have not voted or appeared to have
voted in previous two general elections.
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN asked what type of notification will be mailed.
He indicated his concern is some of his constituents read little or
no English.
Number 0697
MS. FENUMIAI said it was the Division of Elections intent to send
a postage card advising them of the information the division has on
the voters' registration and asking them if this information is
correct. If not, could they please update the card. It would be
written as simply as possible, the city clerks may assist those who
have difficulty in reading or writing English.
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN referred to page 2, line 16, "...procedures set
out in 42 U.S.C. [code]" He asked what do those procedures cover.
MS. FENUMIAI replied the procedures cover what is basically in HB
259. She indicated she had copies available and would provide the
members copies.
Number 0710
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if there were regulations for the
election pamphlet.
MS. FENUMIAI replied, "...statute."
TAPE 98-16, SIDE B
Number 0053
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS said there are other savings. He indicated
he operates a post office, they have to forward a lot of the
information, it creates a lot of extra work and a lot of extra
manpower and resources devoted to that. He said, "Any time we can
clean the lists up, while it may not impact the people we think it
does, it certainly would impact the postal service and those kind
of things." He encouraged the committee to go forward with HB 259.
Number 0150
KATHLEEN STRASBAUGH, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division,
Department of Law, testified before the committee. She said,
"There are several cases in which the constitutionality of the NVRA
[National Voter Registration Act] has been upheld with respect to
'state's rights'. And one of the more notable decisions is ACORN
[Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now] versus
Edgar, the governor of Illinois. It was decided in the Seventh
Circuit which looks out for state's rights, so it has sustained
several challenges. Also, the state of California is another
notable case which lost an effort to try to challenge the
constitutionality of the law."
MS. STRASBAUGH said, "Secondly, the -- I certainly want to preserve
all of my options as the person likely to defend this suit, but
it's not -- our present language does raise some questions about
whether you're being targeted for non-voting only in the purge
process and this way you have to completely lose contact. ...If
somebody goes to the polls and their name is not on the list or
(indisc.) order, the poll officials could take all down. The
question ballot sleeve is also a registration form. Another
benefit I might add in that regard, is that this is already the
Division of Elections' practice, this enshrines it in statute. It
simply isn't clear from the statute that the division already does
all these, and somebody phones, things get corrected -- questions,
sign a petition. And so somebody would have to fall off the face
of the earth literally to get purged because every contact they
come into with an election's official should result in an update of
the information."
Number 0284
CHAIRMAN JAMES asked if the fiscal note came from doing a mass
mailing.
MS. STRASBAUGH replied yes. If HB 259 does not pass, probably
wholesale mailing is about the only thing elections would probably
be able to do under the current (indisc. paper noise). It is
addressed primarily to the fact that we cannot target now, we have
a mess that is almost five years old.
Number 0324
CHAIR JAMES said, "The current threat of suit."
MS. STRASBAUGH replied, "I think we supplied you the letter. We
had our bill pre-cleared by the justice department for the purpose
of the Civil rights Act - the voting rights Act, but for the
National Voter Registration Act, the justice department said they
didn't like our bill as it currently was constituted because it
appears to target nonvoters according to them and we are trying to
fix the language to be more consistent with the federal law but it
has the advantage of citifying practices we already have, making it
clear that we have them, that is responding to contact and avoiding
-- there are other bones I might have to pick, but this isn't one
frankly that I - I think is a good idea."
Number 0386
CHAIR JAMES indicated this might give Representative Vezey comfort
if HB 259 does not meet the concerns of the justice department.
The state is not necessarily conforming to their ideas, we are
taking our own.
Number 0414
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY mentioned he is not aware of any cases that
have gone before the supreme court in the past ten years where the
policies of the justice department have been upheld. He said, "Not
the law, I'm saying the policies -- the justice department takes
the law and says this is the way we're going to enforce it. On the
same line I'm not aware of any cases that have gone through any
courts that have to do with state's rights to use some reasonable
standard for purging of nonactive voters. I believe most laws have
gone in have had to do with registering voters and not purging
voting lists."
MS. STRASBAUGH said, "The Illinois case was that practices of the
state of Illinois were challenged in many particulars including the
purge procedure. The justice department doesn't appear to have
been losing this type of case. The type of case that
Representative Vezey is referring to is some other extreme
positions taken in two or three cases in the south by the justice
department for redistricting in which they continued to maximize
representation, even after having been instructed by congress and
the courts not to... I don't think this falls into the same
category as the redistricting case."
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he believes she said there have not been
any cases before the supreme court involving voter registration,
not involving purging voters.
Number 0550
MS. STRASBAUGH replied no, she did not mean to represent that there
has been a supreme court challenge. She believes, in the cases she
mentioned, one case covered comprehensive practices, not just the
provision of voter registration.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said, "I would correct one comment you made,
that in 1991 the justice department was telling states to maximize
minority representation. The justice department was, the supreme
court came back the early 1990s and says no way, Jose."
CHAIR JAMES asked for a motion to move HB 259 out of committee.
Number 0588
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS made a motion to move HB 259 out of
committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY objected.
Number 0605
CHAIR JAMES requested a roll call vote. Representatives Dyson,
Hodgins, Ivan and Chair James voted in support of moving HB 259
from committee. Representative Vezey voted against it. Therefore
HB 259 moved from the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
CHAIR JAMES called for an at ease and turned the House State
Affairs Standing Committee meeting over to Vice Chairman Ivan.
HJR 50 - PERMANENT FUND PUBLIC CORPORATION
Number 0600
VICE CHAIRMAN IVAN announced the next order of business is HJR 50,
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to a public corporation established to manage the
permanent fund, sponsored by Representative James.
Number 0682
PATRICK LOUNSBURY, Legislative Secretary to Representative James
testified on behalf of Representative James, sponsor of HJR 50. He
said, "Before you again is HB 81 and HJR 50 relating to the board
members of the permanent fund and how it related to their removal
for cause or serving at the pleasure of the governor." He said,
"We have been over this extensively and have been working with the
Department of Law to ensure that this is a proper piece of
legislation. Something I just received yesterday was a dismissal
letter from the governor to a particular board member and I believe
that it further illustrates the point how politics, be them as they
may, really should be taken out to the extent they can be from this
process. He read a line in the letter, 'I must be confident that
the existing board will carry out its statutory duties consistent
with my philosophy of government. As for the existing board, I am
not confident that it will act in a manner consistent with my
philosophy.' Stating philosophy of government not philosophy of
financial responsibility or best interests of the State of Alaska,
and I would just like to submit that into the record."
MR. LOUNSBURY continued. "I was talking with the Department of Law
to see if we could get around an amendment to the constitution. I
believe that the founding fathers asserted that they would like to
have a strong governor and I agree with that. And any time we mess
with the constitution we should really take care. And we tried to
come up with some language but I believe it would just still bring
us back to point A, serving at the pleasure of the governor and
will put us in the same position we are now where any governor that
would come in could wipe out the board of the permanent fund.
Which, it being one of our best assets, I don't believe it to be a
prudent course. And, so what were doing here is for continuity for
the board."
MR. LOUNSBURY stated, "Another concern was removal for cause, how
is that defined, what's the case log, could that just be a whole
can of worms. We believe that the bill, on page 3 where it states
each board member has a fiduciary duty to the fund, and each member
shall perform official actions, so in accordance to that duty, it
covers the cause measure where if a member would break that
fiduciary responsibility, that could be cause and then could be
removed by the governor."
MR. LOUNSBURY concluded HJR 50 will allow the process a little more
accountability, the board members would also be subject to
confirmation of the legislature which is something that is not done
at the moment.
VICE CHAIRMAN IVAN asked for an at ease to obtain a quorum.
TAPE 98-17, SIDE A
Number 0001
HB 81 - PERMANENT FUND BOARD MEMBERS & STAFF
VICE CHAIRMAN IVAN called the meeting back to order in
approximately four minutes. He indicated the next order of
business is HB 81, "An Act relating to the members of the board and
staff of the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation," sponsored by
Representative James.
Number 0005
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS made a motion to move HB 81 from committee
with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note. There
being no objections, HB 81 moved from the House State Affairs
Standing Committee.
HJR 50 - PERMANENT FUND PUBLIC CORPORATION
Number 0010
VICE CHAIRMAN IVAN stated the next order of business is HJR 50,
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to a public corporation established to manage the
permanent fund, sponsored by Representative James.
Number 0020
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS made a motion to move HJR 50 with individual
recommendations and attached fiscal note. Hearing no objection,
HJR 50 passed out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
SB 105 - ETHICS/LOBBYING/CAMPAIGN FINANCE
Number 0027
VICE CHAIRMAN IVAN said the next order of business is CSSB 105(FIN)
amended, "An Act relating to legislative and executive branch
ethics; relating to campaign finances for candidates for state
office; relating to the conduct and regulation of lobbyists with
respect to public officials; relating to the filing of disclosures
by certain state employees and officials; making a conforming
amendment to the definition of 'public official' for employment
security statutes; and providing for an effective date," Rules by
request of the Legislative Ethics Committee.
Number 0049
BEN BROWN, Legislative Administrative Assistant to Senator Kelly,
sponsor of SB 105, testified before the committee. He said SB 105
is a comprehensive piece of legislation, executive branch ethics,
and to a lesser extent campaign finance reform. He reminded the
members a brief overview was provided to them last week.
REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ asked what version was being
addressed.
MR. BROWN replied LS0074\K.a. [0-LS0074\K amended by finance].
VICE CHAIRMAN IVAN noted for the record, Representatives Berkowitz
and Elton were present.
MR. BROWN referred to the first section of SB 105. He said it is
an expansion of the ban on fund-raising during legislative
sessions. The campaign finance law was passed, a couple years ago,
in response to a voter initiative. An oversight on the part of
Mike Frank continued to allow the governor and lieutenant governor
to raise money during legislative sessions, legislators cannot do
that anymore. He indicated the easiest way to solve that problem,
in Title 15.13 the Campaign Finance Act, is to create a definition
of state office that includes the governor, lieutenant governor,
and all legislators. If there was an elected attorney general - it
would probably include anyone who was running as a delegate to a
constitutional convention.
MR. BROWN stressed all of those offices are state offices. He
believes the intent was to prevent money from being raised, for
their offices, while the legislature was in session. SB 105
creates a definition of state office, it includes the governor and
lieutenant governor, and it will not allow anyone to give money to
those persons during the session or to anyone who has declared
candidacy for those positions. It will not allow persons who are
declared candidates to receive money. He said, "The way campaign
finance is written, we ban the giving and we ban the taking."
Number 0127
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked, "Are we going to be discussing the
sections of the bill as we go through them, or are we going to let
this all wash over us and then come back and address it."
VICE CHAIRMAN IVAN indicated SB 105 would not move out of committee
today.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said, "It seems to me what you're trying
to do here is there's someone in the other body, he's running for
governor and is unable to raise funds at this point in his
campaign. And one of the options is to prohibit the governor from
raising funds at the same time, ignoring that there's someone else
whose not in the legislature or a sitting governor. But one of the
options is just to say that anyone whose sitting in the legislature
can raise funds for any other office. There is also, the Senate
majority leader is running for a federal office and there is no
prohibition against him raising funds. So, the fix that you are
proposing here seems narrowly targeted to an individual race rather
than to the (indisc.) best interests of campaign reform."
MR. BROWN responded a candidate, or individual, who has filed with
the commission the documents necessary to permit that individual to
incur election rated expenses would include Mr. Lindauer.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said but it would not include Mr. Duncan
[Senator].
MR. BROWN replied, "Not if he is running for congress, no. Or if
he's running for school board it would not, state office is state
office and if it's the wisdom of the legislature to ban fund-
raising for any office, a dogcatcher up to - if we ever elected a
secretary general to the U.N. [United Nations], we could do that.
I think the approach in Title 15 is to create a category of state
offices and state offices are those things that the legislature --
well those who hold state office are going to be most interested in
legislative activity and therefore would have the greatest conflict
of interest in raising money during a legislative session. It's
entirely possible to argue that the same could be true for people
with having to leave the level of state office and bump up to the
congressional level. That's not the way campaign finance reform
was written and that's not the way this bill is written. But to
say that it does this - this (indisc.) is narrowly targeted toward
a specific current candidate for governor, is that you could just
as easily say that Mike Frank was writing special interest
legislation when he wrote the voter passed initiative for the
current sitting governor? You could say that his goal was to allow
the current governor to raise funds during this session. I don't
think that's the case any more than I think it's the case this is
targeted toward a specific candidate in the current race who is a
member of the legislature. I don't know if there is a lot of value
in speculating about that, the ban is going to be pretty rigorous
in terms of banning persons who have filed their documents to raise
money. (Indisc.) ...Mr. Lindauer as well. If that bans Joe Q.
Public, it just shuts down fund-raising during session."
Number 0182
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated the current situation provides
great hypothetical. You have a wealthy individual who does not
need to raise money, you also have a sitting member of the
legislature who is unable to raise money in the race for governor.
You have a sitting governor who needs to compete either against a
wealthy individual, in which case it will be fair for the governor
to be allowed to raise money. He said, "It seems the one who is
suffering an inequity here is Mr. Taylor [Senator], and now he'll
be surprised to hear me advocating on his behalf, but it seems the
fair solution, and the best solution here is to say, if you're
running for statewide office, while you're holding a legislative
seat, you raise funds for that office."
MR. BROWN responded that is not the way SB 105 is written. He did
not believe it was best to put an (indisc.) definition in Title
15.13 that takes too much into account - the circumstances of the
current governor's race - this was not a contention at that time.
He noted SB 105 passed the Senate 17 to 2.
MR. BROWN said if we expand the definition of state office to
include our congressional delegation, that's a policy call, but at
the current time it's not.
Number 0218
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Mr. Brown to explain what the consensus
of creating SB 105, why would this make democracy in Alaska better.
MR. BROWN responded SB 105 is not a main issue of change for the
campaign finance law, it is a targeted fix to language that was put
into the campaign finance law by the legislature in response to a
voter initiative.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated this has been law since 1974.
MR. BROWN replied not the ban during session, fund-raising giving
and taking. It was his understanding that this provision was
inserted during the campaign finance reform.
Number 0238
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY noted it dates back to the 1976 campaign
finance laws. Legislators have not been able to collect funds
during legislative sessions.
MR. BROWN replied if they were running for governor they could.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said, "I know we had attorney general rulings
back as recently as 1994 that that was not true. I think it
applied before then. The biggest problem I have here, and I don't
think this would withstand (indisc.) court for five seconds, you're
telling challengers, people who are not in public office that they
can't campaign when the legislature is sitting. That gives the
power, that is the entities that are in power, the ability to have
complete control over when we have campaigns. That you really
think the Supreme Court of the State of Alaska, much less the
Supreme Court of the United States, is going to uphold that. Could
you imagine the legislature being faced with an onslaught of
unpopular opposition to staying in session year-round, it could
happen."
MR. BROWN stated that has been considered, the committee would be
reviewing an amendment in the coming weeks. The best way to
withstand constitutional challenges for a campaign fund-raising ban
is to make it apply to people equally and to make it apply for a
reasonable amount of time. A period, right before an election,
when it's most necessary that the fund-raising activity is
protected by free speech - mandates be allowed.
Number 0261
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked how do you keep from interfering with
first amendment rights under the State of Alaska Constitution and
the federal constitution by telling them they cannot campaign.
MR. BROWN responded, "It's not campaigning, they're allowed to
campaign, they're just not allowed to raise money and accept
donations. Now the two are obviously very closely aligned."
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said, "They are independently wealthy, they
have their own funds, they can campaign, but if they are at poverty
level (indisc.)."
MR. BROWN interjected, "Or with whatever they raise between the
first of January and the beginning of the session."
Number 0273
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said, "We have a clever legislature, they just
stay in session all the time to keep opponents from coming into the
system."
MR. BROWN stated he could not answer that question. He said, "...
We've strengthened our campaign finance laws in Alaska. We do a
lot of things that limit people's ability to express themselves by
giving money. We've allowed them to give less money, we allow
lobbyists to give money only to persons in whose district they
reside. These are things that may be challenged, they may go to
the courts, so I can't resolve all those issues right here. I can
simply speak for the way the bill is currently written and some of
the rationale behind it. And I apologize if that's not adequate."
Number 0284
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said, "I just think we're being extremely
short sighted here, that if we want to create parody, then we need
to make the door bigger rather than smaller. What comes in mind is
the way we modified the requirements for definition of political
party last year. We did not in any way shrink the opportunities to
be a political party, we created another avenue, we expanded. ...
I draw the line when we start telling challengers, people who are
trying get into office for the first time, or after being out of
office, that they can't campaign. ... It's impossible to separate
money from the ability to communicate. So I have some serious
problems."
Number 0305
REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON said, "If I understand this section, the
philosophical under (indisc.) are you don't want to make a sitting
legislature happy by giving them money while they have their hands
on the reigns of state government. ... Is that a fair statement of
why you want to prohibit the exchange of money during the
legislative session."
MR. BROWN responded, "Since that preexisted, and this is simply an
attempt to whom that applies, I can't necessarily embrace that
wholeheartedly. I think that sounds pretty ballpark, that's what
we're all thinking here."
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said, if that's the case, why is it okay to
give money for a federal race. Another example would be, since the
Municipality of Anchorage has changed their city elections to
April, why not include any elective office. He said, "You can make
a person -- I'm not saying that Representative Berkowitz is ever
going to run for mayor, or that Representative Dyson is ever going
to run for mayor, but you could make them happy I'm sure if they
weren't covered in this and they had the ability to raise money for
an expensive mayoral race in Anchorage. Why are you just doing it
to elected state offices?"
MR. BROWN replied our elections are in November, our sessions are
at the beginning of the year. A possible amendment will be brought
forward to have this ban not apply, and the run up to an election.
If the Municipality of Anchorage is going to have their elections
in April, it is not going to be possible for the local races -
contacts there to shut down fund-raising.
Number 0333
MR. BROWN said a line was drawn, state offices is where it was
drawn around. It is everything above municipal and below
congressional. He continued, "I also believe - and obviously for
the lower level offices, the local offices, state law can just
govern how they're run, how money is raised, that sort of thing.
But for the congressional offices, I think we get into some federal
issues, and it's something I haven't looked at. ... It's not
something that has been proposed in a concrete way. So I've had to
look at what the ramifications would be of expanding this ban to
that higher level. I think it might be legally hard to defend, and
so it just hasn't been looked at. It's certainly a policy call
like I said. If it's a good idea to ban it for state offices
during the session, then maybe it's a good idea to ban it for
everyone. It's not the way it's currently written, it's something
that could be put into the bill but then again what that does, it
probably makes a whole host of people who don't like it the way
it's currently written for state office like it even less for the
municipal office and congressional office."
Number 0349
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said if you apply the same logic, then clearly
this body does have the ability to control the conduct of some of
the municipal elections. He said, "We do it with APOC [Alaska
Public Offices Commission], we do it in a lot of other ways. If we
apply that same logic, it would be easy to say we ought to ban
fund-raising by legislators for municipal offices also because,
especially since Anchorage is doing it in April. I guess that gets
back to the point that I think Representative Berkowitz was making
and that is you have two ways of solving this situation. One of
the ways is to apply it equally across the board to everybody for
any office that is not necessarily a legislative office. Or the
other is to say, 'No, a legislator can't raise money during the
session for a run for office or reelection of a legislator.' You
can either open it up a little bit or you can close the door more
fully than you're trying to close the door here."
Number 0366
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS said if you were really going to do a level
playing field you would put a moratorium on press announcements for
incumbents. He said, "There's a lot of power in that, that does
not cost, that somebody challenging for office does not have the
opportunity for. That in itself is a tremendous, tremendous, tool,
not that it's ever been used that way or ever would [laughter].
But there is a possibility of being able to make a press conference
or a speech such as this [laughter], to come forward."
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS continued. "As far as the municipal
elections in Anchorage, I don't think it does government any good
to preclude somebody from the opportunity of running for an office
and I would hate to see Representative Berkowitz not being able to
run for borough assembly in Anchorage simply because he was a
legislator of even worse, he had to resign being a legislator in
order to run for another office. And I don't think that does
government any good, I think what we're trying to do is get as many
people into the fray to run for office with as level a playing
field as possible. I don't know how we're going to approach the
power of the incumbency."
Number 0388
VICE CHAIRMAN IVAN said this was the most exciting subject that was
discussed in committee [laughter]. He mentioned people were
waiting on teleconference.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said, "Mr. Brown, you are a delight, and I
would appreciate it if you city boys in general, and you
particularly would speak a little s-l-o-w-e-r so that those of us,
with an old central processing chip could do better keeping up."
[Laughter].
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said, "I guess we're not going to hear from
the governor's office on this, but does anybody really think the
governor cares if we allow him to collect money under a campaign
law or not."
MR. BROWN replied he did not know. He indicated the chairwoman of
the Democratic party of Alaska has expressed her concerns about
whether or not the law is changed in that regard.
VICE CHAIRMAN IVAN opened the meeting up to public testimony.
Number 0423
GARY BADER, citizen and Chairman of the State Personnel Board
testified via teleconference from Anchorage, his comments would
pertain to the executive branch ethics. He said, "We, the board
members, are still unclear as to why such sweeping legislation is
required. Quite frankly we at a loss as to what you're trying to
fix, again that pertains to executive branch ethics. My second
point is we're a citizen board, and we work approximately 20 days
a year on behalf of the state and that's not a problem to us. ...
We believe that with passage of the bill [SB 105] as it's
structured, if we could end up working 40 to 50 days a year. We
didn't buy into that, that doesn't mean we won't do it, but we
didn't buy into that."
MR. BADER continued. "I would like you to consider some level of
compensation for this citizen board to the extent that we will end
up working that amount of time and I'd suggest something in the
area of $150 a day per board member."
MR. BADER said, "The second thing I'd like to request if the
legislation progress, is an independent council to the board.
Currently we are required to use attorneys for a board council. It
comes from the AG's office [Office of the Attorney General].
Although I understand there is not a legal conflict of interest,
there is certainly perceived public conflict of interest when, in
fact, the state is party to most of our business."
MR. BADER concluded, "The last thing I'd like you to consider is to
include ... the opportunity for the board to either hear the
complaints for the appeals or to appoint a hearing officer.
Currently we only have the opportunity to appoint a hearing
officer. And quite frankly we believe that it would be a much
better business and perhaps less costly if we have the option to do
either. I presume you have my letter which I wrote to the Senate
committee last year, so I'll conclude my comments with those."
Number 0464
MR. BROWN replied they were not any where near that section. He
indicated he has been working with Neil Slotnick, Department of
Law, some of his concerns would be addressed. He said, "We will be
happy to look at things to make sure that this doesn't create an
unworkable situation for you and does what it's intended, which is
to improve the executive branch ethics and makes you as an
independent authority as a personnel board a good overseer of
executive branch ethics."
SUZIE BARNETT, Professional Assistant to the Legislative Ethics
Committee, Anchorage, said she was available to answer questions
concerning Amendment 2460.
JOE DONAHUE, member of the Legislative Ethics Committee, Kenai,
said he would give any of the Ethics Committee's perspective on
those issues that affect the Ethics Committee's operation. He
indicated the Ethics Committee does not have any input on the
executive branch ethics portion or on the campaign reform portion.
Number 0502
MIKE MCMULLEN, Manager, Division of Personnel, Department of
Administration said he was present as staff to the division, which
houses the personnel board. He said our discussion would be
(indisc.) when we get those sections in the Executive Branch Ethics
Act.
Number 0506
STEVEN (NEIL) SLOTNICK, Assistant Attorney General, Commercial
Section, Department of Law came before the committee, said he was
also available to testify on the executive branch portion.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS referred to page 5, line 8. He said it
seems to be in conflict with line 21. While that is an existing
law he thought Mr. Brown might offer an amendment.
MR. BROWN replied line 8 is to office accounts for legislators,
they are allowed $5 thousand per year in their term. The reference
on line 21 is for municipal office accounts. Campaign finance law
allows candidates for municipal office to dispose of unused
campaign assets up to $5 thousand for their whole term of office.
The assumption is you do not need as much money to be a municipal
office holder as you do to be a state office holder.
Number 0523
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS said, "I find that it says anything under
this paragraph, and I'm not sure if that means all the things in
Section 10, or if it just means Section (indisc.), that's what I'm
referring to."
MR. BROWN replied it is suppose to refer to ten.
Number 0528
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said, "Going back to Section 1, ...You
look at a candidate or individual who has filed, now someone who
hasn't filed can accept all kinds of contributions and later
transfer those funds in, is that fair to say."
MR. BROWN replied, "That is a loophole that I don't know how we can
ever go about closing. I guess we could try to put a definition
into statute of someone who is considering filing and ban that
person's behavior, I think that's obviously ridiculous. If someone
wants to raise money, and say it's a gift, and just go around
saying 'I'm your friend give me money,' and then after that money
has been received by that person decides to file a letter of
intent."
Number 0537
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ interjected, "Actually it would seem to me
it's better to do that from a fund-raising point of view. You
don't file, you go around -- I believe you can get $10 thousand
tax-free gifts from all kinds of people and then after you
accumulate a huge war chest you can say, 'Now I'm going to take all
of my personal money, which is a vast sum at this point, and I'm
going to declare for election."
MR. BROWN replied he did not know how to solve that problem.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said, "I do know how to solve that
problem. And part of the problem is, is when you put together a
laundry list like this, it's a huge document - a huge laundry list
of how to behave - people are going to find loopholes like this.
The way to preclude people from using laundry lists like this is to
make a very simple ethical rule because there is no way we're going
to compel ethical behavior from people who are intent on looking
for loopholes. You look at something like the Judicial Code of
Ethics, which is one or two pages long, and it seems for the most
part to work, and it's not a laundry list by any stretch of the
imagination. But, what it says is basically is you've got to avoid
the appearance of impropriety. Now, collecting $10 thousand checks
from your buddies, before you declare for office, there is an
appearance impropriety to it. It sort of violates the spirit of
law but it's not against the letter of the law. Now we do
something simple like that, as opposed to a laundry list, then I
think we've gone some place in terms of establishing ethics. If it
works for the judicial branch, I think it can work for other
branches as well."
Number 0556
MR. BROWN replied that it is a policy call. He said, "I don't know
that the public will be comfortable with legislation that repeals
vast portions of AS 24.60 and replaced them with gentle, yet far-
reaching language that said everyone is going to behave well." He
said Representative Finkelstein and Senator Collins, when they
worked on the ethics law, unavoidably steered in the direction of
listing things, being specific, and enumerating what could be done
and what could not be done because the larger general honorable
approach had not worked in the past or was perceived as not having
worked in the past.
MR. BROWN said, "I think when you look at the body of persons who
are covered under judicial ethics, those persons for the most part
have gone through a special set of educational regors to get to
where they are and hopefully in the process of that have learned
something about having higher standards than, not to say everyone
in the executive and legislative branches does not have, but those
persons are not required to have special education to have gotten
there in the first place. Lord knows it's far beyond me assessing
how judicial ethics work in addition to the few branches of
government we've already started looking at. So, I can only go so
far that direction without becoming a little alarmed."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said, "My comment to that would be, maybe
if people expected higher ethics in the legislative branch they'd
get it."
Number 0573
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY referred to the appearance of impropriety. He
said, "I would beg to differ because there would be no appearance
because the only person you have to report against, up to $10
thousand is to the IRS [Internal Revenue Service], and they're
prohibited by law from disclosing that information. This is what
we're getting down to is disclosure and when you drive people out
of the system, which is we've done a good job of that now. The
majority of campaign spending in this country today I would submit
it done out of the system and is not disclosed to the public. We
have destroyed through all our legislation the one legitimate
purpose of campaign finance reform and that's the public's right to
know."
VICE CHAIRMAN IVAN indicated the meeting would adjourn in five
minutes.
MR. BROWN asked if the meeting could run until 10:00.
VICE CHAIRMAN IVAN told Mr. Brown to proceed.
Number 0595
MR. BROWN said Sections 3 and 4 deals with disposal of unused
assets after a campaign. When Campaign Finance Reform was passed
by the legislature, a number of options were given to candidates
for what to do with the extra money they had in their accounts, and
they have to do with the 90 days of the elections ending. He said,
"You can't just keep your account open now, year after year, ...
like you use to be able to."
MR. BROWN said, "One of the options of creating an office account,
thereby using some of the funds raised for your candidacy for
office related expenses during your term of office. Senator Donley
inserted language to create office account reserves and that is
what you see in Sections 3 and 4 of the bill [SB 105]. And I don't
know if there is anything particularly controversial about this.
There is an amendment that has already been distributed to you that
solves a problem in terms of rollover of assets that were kept in
an office account reserve and then not put into an office account
and that amendment will be taken up when we get to amendments next
week. And, all of you should have a copy of that on the
committee."
VICE CHAIRMAN IVAN asked how much is a proposed reserve amount
(indisc. - coughing) account.
Number 0610
MR. BROWN replied the amendment won't change the account. The
amount is proposed is $5 thousand for each year of your term of
office if you are a state office holder. He said, "Except it's
more for the governor and lieutenant governor. So, it's $50
thousand, now that's for future campaigns, and its legislative
accounts only. Excuse me, it's not for the governor and lieutenant
governor. So, it's $5 thousand for each year for a representative
that would be $10 thousand and it would be $20 thousand for a
senator. And it would be $5 thousand only for a municipal office
holder regardless of the length of that office of that term. As I
said, there is an amendment that deals with this that we can look
at next week."
Number 0617
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said, "So I can take $5 thousand if I get
that lucky and put that in my next campaign."
MR. BROWN replied yes you can. You are allowed to transfer money
to your next campaign, that is one option.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked, "Am I also precluded from taking
say a second $5 thousand and putting that in an office account."
MR. BROWN replied, "No, if you have $10 thousand you can do both."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said, "So I can squirrel away a good chunk
of money in office accounts."
Number 0622
MR. BROWN replied, "Yes, but if you don't spend the money on office
account expenses. Under the amendment that we're going to look at
next week, ... you'll have to donate that money. You will not be
able to roll it back over into your campaign at the end of the term
of office. That's the problem that exists in the current office
account reserve language."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated, "But I could for example use the
power of the incumbency to send out a lot of mailers."
MR. BROWN replied certainly.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said, "And the thin line between...."
MR. BROWN inerjected, "You can use your legislative office account
for that. ..."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ jokingly replied, "It never occured to me,
but thank you for pointing that out."
Number 0631
MR. BROWN said Section 5 creates a definition of state office in
the campaign finance statutes that include governor, lieutenant
governor, and legislator, or similar state office. He said, "And
presumably that is meant to include delegates for constitutional
conventions, if we ever have an election to elect those. And, if
we ever elect any of our other offices if we change the law so that
we elect our attorney general that would certainly, I would think
be a state office. Although the legislation that effected that
change would need to make sure that it did it here in Title 15. So
that's a pretty simple section."
Number 0639
MR. BROWN said Section 6 does not look simple but it really is. He
indicated it is a technical amendment, recommended by the drafter,
and it changes the employment security statutes to make sure that
persons who are not eligible for unemployment insurance remain
ineligible.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER said, "It's the scary ones."
MR. BROWN agreed they are the scariest ones. He said, "We'd
definitely have to rely on the advice of legal counsel."
MR. BROWN said Section 7 are the Legislative Ethics provisions of
the bill.
Number 0649
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said, "... I'm looking at Section 6, and did
we not amend Section 6 in 1997, Alaska Statute 23.25.26. Is this
something totally new? They changed the English language at some
point in the history of the state legislature and we're going
through and putting 'thats,' and 'whiches,' and 'what nots' ...
I'm really puzzled by what's happened to the English language, that
the people apparently a number of years ago didn't know how to use
it an now we're correcting it."
MR. BROWN said the changes from "which" to "that" are stylistic.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he thought this chapter was amended in
1997.
MR. BROWN replied, "I'm unaware that it had been done. The
substance of component of the chapter starts on line 11, on page 7
though. And it numerates a specific number of persons who work in
the executive branch to make sure that those persons are not going
to become eligible for unemployment insurance because we're
changing the executive branch ethics law. That's not the intent
here, and so it's to make sure that we don't expand to the pool of
eligibility for unemployment benefits ..."
VICE CHAIRMAN IVAN asked for a brief summary of Section 6.
Number 0668
MR. BROWN said Section 6 specifically enumerates the number of
higher level persons who work in the executive branch, in a way
that is necessary to prevent them from becoming eligible for
unemployment insurance upon the cessation of employment in these
positions. He concluded, "And, which is how it currently works but
because we're changing reference to these persons in [Alaska
Statute] 39.50 and 39.52 we have to make a conforming change here,
in 23.20."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ indicated Mr. Slotnick has a concern with
this section.
MR. SLOTNICK replied he is not familiar with this section at all.
He said, "I don't work in employment security, I believe there is
someone in law who can look into this and I can get back to you on
that."
MR. BROWN said that he will try to provide something in writing.
Number 0684
MR. BROWN referred to Section 7. He said, "This is where Joe
[Donahue] and Suzie [Barnett] may decide they might want to chime
in and answer questions if you have them. This enables the
Legislative Ethics Committee to issue subpoenas without the
concurrence of a presiding officer. I believe it was an oversight
in the ethics bill as it was passed by the legislature several
years ago, that this independent subpoenaing power was not given to
the committee. Other permanent interim committees of the
legislature, Legislative Council and Legislative Budget and Audit
have that power. The problem that would exist in having to get the
concurrence of the senate president or the speaker of the house for
the issuance of a subpoena by the ethics committee is what if they
were the target of the investigation or what if one of their staff
were, or one of their majority were for that matter. It's just not
appropriate to have to have that signing off by the president or
the speaker and so this section of the bill will take care of that
and enable the ethics committee to subpoena people independently as
the Leg. [Legislative] Council can."
Number 0696
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY noted there is a major difference between Leg.
[Legislative] Council and Legislative Budget and Audit. Those are
elected officials, we are talking here about appointed officials.
MR. BROWN replied, "It's actually a highbred on the ethics
committee of course, Representative Vezey."
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said, "There are some minority. I'm not sure
that I see apples and oranges comparison there."
TAPE 98-17, SIDE B
Number 0001
MR. DONAHUE said, " ...power to subpoena witnesses. This is really
just a clerical or technical change so that there aren't too
inconsistent sections of the law. And this will just make [AS]
24.25 consistent with [AS] 24.60."
Number 0012
MR. BROWN said, "Section 8 bans out the lobbying. It's been a very
contentious issue in the legislature for a number of years. It is
what prevented this bill from moving through House Finance, I
believe, in the last legislature when it was SB 141. And it got
all the way over to the House and it got solved there. This was
not put in by the ethics committee, the members of the ethics
committee I don't believe felt comfortable banning spousal
lobbying, they did want a disclosure requirement in there, but the
Senate decided to put a ban in and so therefore, it's now in the
bill. It will prevent persons who are married to legislators, who
are engaged in a relationship that resembles marriage with a
legislator from being lobbyists."
Number 0032
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Mr. Brown to define conjugal.
MR. BROWN replied, "Persons cohabiting with, I don't know if we
have a definition of conjugal in statute, but I assume it would
mean having physical relations similar to marital relations... I
think we might have to rely on Webster, if you will. It's a policy
call right now, whether or not it would be fair to ban only spouses
who were married in the eyes of the state and God and not ban law
being for those who are in a similar relationship. So I think the
policy call here is to try to treat married couples and unmarried
couples that are couples equally. If that requires defining
conjugal statutorily, it's something we can certainly do."
Number 0061
MR. BROWN referred to an amendment that was distributed last week.
He said, "The oversight here is we ban spousal lobbying, we have a
disclosure requirement for lobbying by spouses, or spousal
equivalent of staff, but if this ban on spousal lobbying is struck
down, we'll have an inconsistency in the law. It will be perfectly
all right for legislator's spouses to lobby, the legislative staff
will have to disclose it and the legislator's spouses won't even
have to disclose it. So the contingency language will provide for
disclosure by legislative spouse lobbyists if the outright ban is
struck down. And there's a good chance that it might be, I guess
it's the conventional legal wisdom on that..."
Number 0082
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked what is the (indisc.) against spousal
lobbying.
MR. BROWN indicated Senator Phillips is the one who offered the
amendments. He said, "Basically I can kind of guess where the
argument is coming from, it's that if you're making policy, and
your spouse, or spousal equivalent, is receiving money to influence
public policy, it's an appearance of impropriety of the highest
order I guess is what people think. They're not trusting persons
in these relationships to leave the office at the office when they
go home I guess."
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY made an observation, he has not seen any sign
that the public sees this as a problem.
Number 0105
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said, "I can't let a comment pass, Ben [Mr.
Brown] - It's probably illegal but nobody may challenge it. That
kind of logic, I think kind of diminishes the efforts that we do.
I guess I'm a little bit concerned by the fact that you're kind of
giving testimony that this probably isn't legal but let's go ahead
and do it anyway."
MR. BROWN said, "I didn't mean to diminish the gravity or the
importance of the legislation before us. It's a difficulty policy
call to attempt to ban spousal lobbying and many red flags have
been raised about its potential unconstitutionality. Therefore,
the amendment that was distributed to you last week attempts to
address that problem by putting in contingency language so that the
bill does put in a disclosure requirement if the outright ban has
been struck down. I didn't mean to sound flippant or irreverent
about it, and I apologize if I did. It's an important issue, it's
a difficult policy call to make and the House may one again find
itself disagreeing with the wisdom of the Senate on it. And, if
the House doesn't find that persons covered by the bill may decide
that they find themselves uncomfortable with having to live with
the provisions of the law."
Number 0135
VICE CHAIRMAN IVAN stated Section 8 will be brought up at the next
hearing.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS indicated he was going to make a motion to
remove Section 8, but it could be discussed further.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected for the purpose of keeping it on
the table and giving the committee a good stopping point.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 0150
VICE CHAIRMAN IVAN adjourned the House State Affairs Standing
Committee at 9:56 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|