03/08/2005 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR8 | |
| HB83 | |
| HB144 | |
| HB94 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HJR 8 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 83 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 94 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 144 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 8, 2005
8:03 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Paul Seaton, Chair
Representative Carl Gatto, Vice Chair
Representative Jim Elkins
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Jay Ramras
Representative Berta Gardner
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 8
Expressing support of Alaska Army National Guard soldiers
deployed worldwide.
- MOVED HJR 8 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 83
"An Act relating to the Alaska Seismic Hazards Safety
Commission."
- MOVED CSHB 83(MLV) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 144
"An Act authorizing an advisory vote on whether income of the
Alaska permanent fund in the earnings reserve account should be
used for a community dividend program."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 94
"An Act relating to qualifications of voters, requirements and
procedures regarding independent candidates for President and
Vice-President of the United States, voter registration and
voter registration records, voter registration through a power
of attorney, voter registration using scanned documents, voter
residence, precinct boundary and polling place designation and
modification, recognized political parties, voters unaffiliated
with a political party, early voting, absentee voting,
application for absentee ballots through a power of attorney, or
by scanned documents, ballot design, ballot counting, voting by
mail, voting machines, vote tally systems, initiative,
referendum, recall, and definitions in the Alaska Election Code;
relating to incorporation elections; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HJR 8
SHORT TITLE: SUPPORTING ALASKA ARMY NATL. GUARD
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) WEYHRAUCH
02/02/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/02/05 (H) MLV, STA
02/17/05 (H) MLV AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/17/05 (H) Moved Out of Committee
02/17/05 (H) MINUTE(MLV)
02/18/05 (H) MLV RPT 5DP
02/18/05 (H) DP: GRUENBERG, ELKINS, THOMAS,
DAHLSTROM, LYNN
03/08/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 83
SHORT TITLE: SEISMIC HAZARDS SAFETY COMMISSION
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) LEDOUX
01/19/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/19/05 (H) MLV, STA, FIN
02/03/05 (H) MLV AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/03/05 (H) Moved CSHB 83(MLV) Out of Committee
02/03/05 (H) MINUTE(MLV)
02/04/05 (H) MLV RPT CS(MLV) NT 6DP
02/04/05 (H) DP: MCGUIRE, CISSNA, ELKINS, DAHLSTROM,
GRUENBERG, LYNN
03/08/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 144
SHORT TITLE: ADVISORY VOTE ON COMMUNITY DIVIDEND
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) THOMAS
02/14/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/14/05 (H) STA, FIN
03/08/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 94
SHORT TITLE: ELECTIONS
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/21/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/21/05 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
02/03/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/03/05 (H) Heard & Held
02/03/05 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/08/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/08/05 (H) Heard & Held
02/08/05 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/10/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/10/05 (H) Heard & Held
02/10/05 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/17/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/17/05 (H) Heard & Held
02/17/05 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/19/05 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/19/05 (H) Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled
03/08/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
TERRY HARVEY, Staff
to Representative Bruce Weyhrauch
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HJR 8 on behalf of the sponsor,
Representative Weyhrauch.
KATRINA PILLOW, Major
Board of Directors
Alaska Army National Guard Officers Association
Eagle River, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 8.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID GUTTENBERG
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 83 as sponsor.
ROD COMBELLICK, Associate Director
Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys
Department of National Resources (DNR)
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 83.
ROGER HANSEN, State Seismologist
Research Professor
University of Alaska
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 83.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL THOMAS
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented, as sponsor, HB 144.
JON BOLLING, Administrator
City of Craig
Craig, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 144.
JACK SHAY, Assembly, Ketchikan Gateway Borough;
Past president, Alaska Municipal League
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 144.
TOM BOEDEKER, Manager, City of Soldotna;
Legislative Committee Chair, Alaska Municipal League (AML)
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 144.
KEVIN RITCHIE
Alaska Municipal League (AML)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of AML and answered
questions during the hearing on HB 144.
LAURA GLAISER, Director
Division of Elections
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
144.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:03:31 AM. Present at the call
to order were Representatives Elkins, Gardner, Gruenberg, and
Seaton. Representatives Lynn, Gatto, and Ramras arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HJR 8-SUPPORTING ALASKA ARMY NATL. GUARD
CHAIR SEATON announced that the first order of business was
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 8, Expressing support of Alaska Army
National Guard soldiers deployed worldwide.
8:04:24 AM
TERRY HARVEY, Staff to Representative Bruce Weyhrauch, Alaska
State Legislature, introduced HJR 8 on behalf of Representative
Weyhrauch, sponsor. He explained that HJR 8 is the
legislature's official record of support for the fine men and
women actively deployed with the Alaska Army National Guard. He
stated that [the sponsor] doesn't want everyone to take for
granted the sacrifices these individuals are making. The
proposed legislation would recognize the troops that have been
overseas and have returned, as well as those who are still
overseas. Furthermore, [the sponsor] wants to recognize the
difficulties experienced by the families of those in the Alaska
Army National Guard as well.
CHAIR SEATON said he believes he can speak for the entire
committee when relating support to all the National Guard
branches that do such fine work.
8:07:05 AM
KATRINA PILLOW, Major, Board of Directors, Alaska Army National
Guard Officers Association, related support for HJR 8.
8:08:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER applauded HJR 8 and noted that she is a
co-sponsor. She asked if the resolution should be broadened to
include the other National Guard branches in Alaska besides the
army.
8:08:33 AM
MR. HARVEY confirmed that there is also the Air National Guard.
Due to the differences in deployment and the separation of the
entities, this resolution supports the Alaska Army National
Guard. He mentioned that Representative Gruenberg, during a
House Special Committee on Military and Veterans' Affairs
meeting, discussed the possibility of crafting a similar
resolution for the Air National Guard.
8:09:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if Representative Weyhrauch
planned to introduce such a resolution.
MR. HARVEY answered that at this stage he believes the sponsor
will work with the House Special Committee on Military and
Veterans' Affairs to craft legislation.
8:09:57 AM
CHAIR SEATON closed public testimony.
8:10:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS moved to report HJR 8 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HJR 8 was reported out of the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
8:10:35 AM
HB 83-SEISMIC HAZARDS SAFETY COMMISSION
8:10:47 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the next order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 83 "An Act relating to the Alaska Seismic Hazards
Safety Commission."
8:11:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID GUTTENBERG, Alaska State Legislature,
testifying at the request of co-sponsor Representative Gabrielle
LeDoux, noted that HB 83 and HB 84 were combined into HB 83. He
said the bill would extend the sunset date on the Alaska Seismic
Hazard Safety Commission and add tsunami hazards to the
commission's purview. The commission is due to expire, and [the
Legislative Budget and Audit Committee] recommends it be allowed
to expire because there has been no action on it, he said;
however, [the commission] is critical to the safety and well
being of Alaska. He stated that, currently, nobody in the state
is working on ways to mitigate damages caused by earthquakes or
tsunamis or recommending related building standards and codes to
minimize damage in the event of such disasters. The
commission's sole authority is to make recommendations. He
indicated that the insurance industry is supportive of [HB 83].
8:13:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG said HB 83 seeks to prevent the loss
of lives.
8:15:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO remarked that there are "essential
building" standards; schools and fire department buildings are
built to withstand earthquakes. He offered further details.
8:16:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG responded that there are national
standards, but they are applied indiscriminately to the entire
state as if it were one zone. He said the state needs to
delineate high-risk areas and decide where and what standards
are needed.
8:17:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if Representative Guttenberg was
saying the state should name specific dangers and the zones that
they occupy.
8:18:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG indicated the intent is to allow the
commission to have the opportunity to decide the needs of the
state regarding earthquakes and tsunamis.
8:19:27 AM
ROD COMBELLICK, Associate Director, Division of Geological and
Geophysical Surveys, Department of National Resources (DNR),
stated the department's support of HJR 8. He said that hazards
vary around the state "from the highest earthquake exposure in
the nation along the southern margin of the state, to virtually
no hazard up in the far northwestern corners of the state."
8:21:37 AM
MR. COMBELLICK said there are efforts around the state, but no
real coordination, or standards. Local government participation
on the commission should be effective, he added. Other states
show that the efforts of these types of commissions have been
very effective in reducing casualties.
8:23:26 AM
MR. COMBELLICK said it is easy to become complacent because of
the rarity of these types of events, but that people are then
surprised and not prepared when the next event occurs. An
executive order transferred this commission to DNR, and there is
already money set aside for the commission. "This is a modest
investment now that will certainly reap major benefits in terms
of money and lives saved in the future," he concluded.
8:24:22 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if HB 83 will impose building codes and
inspections or simply make recommendations.
8:25:03 AM
MR. COMBELLICK stated that the commission is strictly advisory,
and recommendations may end up as building codes in the future.
A big part of [the commission's] job will be public education
and coordination around state.
8:25:51 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if codes would only be adopted by local
government.
8:26:14 AM
MR. COMBELLICK said yes, as he understands it. Some local
jurisdictions have seismic codes now, and this commission would
not change the process, it would only make recommendations.
8:27:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if the addition of two members to
the commission requires a change in its quorum.
8:28:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that AS 44.37.065 (e) specifies
that "six members constitute a quorum" for the nine-member
commission.
8:29:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG said keeping it at six is fine because
the commission has no real authority, and that makes it a simple
majority with an eleven-member commission.
8:29:46 AM
ROGER HANSEN, State Seismologist and Research Professor,
University of Alaska, Fairbanks, testified in support of HB 83.
He said his group does a lot of work to understand earthquakes
and tsunamis, and it develops many maps. A committee to
investigate mitigation and land use is good, he said.
8:31:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked how often the committee meets, and if
there is money for travel, per diem, or conferencing.
8:32:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG said that most commission members are
public employees, and their role is built into their jobs. In
terms of the member from the insurance industry, he or she can
teleconference.
8:32:46 AM
CHAIR SEATON closed public testimony.
8:33:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to report CSHB 83(MLV) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 83(MLV) was
reported out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 144-ADVISORY VOTE ON COMMUNITY DIVIDEND
8:34:00 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the next order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 144 "An Act authorizing an advisory vote on whether
income of the Alaska permanent fund in the earnings reserve
account should be used for a community dividend program."
REPRESENTATIVE BILL THOMAS, Alaska State Legislature, as sponsor
of HB 144, stated that the bill asks for an advisory vote to
decide whether the legislature should appropriate $150 million,
adjusted for inflation annually, from the income of the Alaska
Permanent Fund for a community dividend program. Representative
Thomas said municipalities are in dire straits; the state ended
a municipal dividend program years ago, which created
significant problems for the local communities. He added that
the legislature is under-funding many things important to local
communities, such as senior citizen tax exemptions and boat
harbors. He stated that it is the intent of the legislation to
provide a local tax relief for the residents, either by lowering
the mill rate on local property tax, or through a sales tax.
8:36:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMAS said the plan has hardly any effect on the
permanent fund dividend (PFD). He stated his understanding of
the projections is that it will be 10 years before an impact
will be seen, and then it will be approximately "$50-$70." He
said, "This will use a small amount of the projected balance of
the permanent fund earnings reserve accounts." He said he chose
to use a fixed rate so that it would not be as confusing to the
people of Alaska when they vote.
8:37:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER directed attention to the sponsor
statement, which says each municipality would receive a $50,000
minimum base grant, and each unincorporated municipality in the
unorganized borough would receive $25,000. She asked, "Does
that really encompass all of Alaska?"
8:38:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMAS offered his understanding that the answer
is yes. He revealed that it's the format as was used under "the
old revenue sharing program." In response to a request for
clarification from Chair Seaton, he said, "The amounts are
different, but it's the same formula in distribution that's been
used before."
8:38:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO noted that a lot of communities would get
$25,000. He said a community with only two families in it would
receive that money, even though they don't maintain the roads
and may not even have a school. He said he sees an inherent
overextension in giving just a few families the money, and
questioned "what we would be wanting them to do with this
money."
8:39:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMAS indicated that the smallest community he
saw listed had a population of 69. Regarding the reason for
including the unorganized municipalities, he said, "I feel that
this is earnings of oil wealth that was ... put into the
permanent fund." He added, "They get equal treatment through
the PFDs ..., so we didn't want to stray too far from everybody
participating and being eligible to share in this program."
8:40:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO stated concern that some of the population
listed may not be correct, which would affect "how we allocate
the multipliers."
8:41:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMAS said the population calculation is done by
a state demographer in the Department of Commerce. Some of the
indications used include: the [PFD] applications, federal tax
filings, and birth and death statistics and surveys. He pointed
out that the bill is going to the people for an advisory vote.
If they vote yes, the legislature will meet back to draw the
guidelines as to "how it's administrated." He mentioned a
potential amendment.
8:42:19 AM
CHAIR SEATON offered his understanding that "this is not set up
so that this goes with a certain year-based population; this
would be adjusted every year."
8:42:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMAS answered affirmatively.
8:42:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN stated that people are concerned about
losing any portion of the PFD. He asked Representative Thomas
to reiterate for the record how much would be taken out of the
PFD in the first ten years of the program.
8:43:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMAS restated his understanding that there will
be no impact on the PFD for 10 years, and after those 10 years
"it will be about $70." He continued, "In the mean time, if you
were to take this $150 million and go backwards, I believe it's
around $200-$300 potential impact to them at the local level, if
it's used to relieve them of property tax or a sales tax of some
sort."
8:44:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he can't find a definition for
"community" anywhere in the Alaska code, and he noted that he
does not see a definition in the bill.
8:45:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMAS said he is trying to ensure that everybody
who is entitled to a dividend gets one, whether they are an
organized or unorganized municipality. He said, "I think they
all should share in the wealth of the State of Alaska, and
that's why we're going this way." He told Representative
Gruenberg that he would get a definition for "community".
8:46:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recalled that at the time of the
"Claims Act" people reestablished longstanding communities so
that they could participate, and, as a result, a number of
communities were reformed. He said this is not based on
longstanding tradition, but he could see smart people in the
Bush getting together to make some money.
8:46:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMAS said hopefully the department that would
administrate the program would be shrewd enough to figure that
out. He noted that there will probably be new municipalities
sprouting up around new gas or oil developments if there are
none there already.
8:47:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said people would basically be voting
on a distribution from the permanent fund; therefore, he
recommended that "a term like that" should be defined in the
bill itself so people know what they are voting on, and so
future legislatures would have some guidance.
8:47:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMAS stated his understanding that if the
advisory vote is passed, the legislature would decide how to
administrate the program.
8:48:26 AM
CHAIR SEATON questioned specifying $150 million and suggested
that perhaps it should read "up to $150,000,000" so that people
do not have an expectation that it be that amount.
8:49:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMAS stated his understanding that if the money
is not available, then it will not be possible to appropriate
it. He said, "If there are no earnings, there is no money to
give." He said the municipalities would have to be very careful
that they don't spend what might be called a windfall, without
consideration.
8:50:21 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked the sponsor to consider changing the language
to "up to $150,000,000".
8:51:10 AM
CHAIR SEATON directed attention to the language on page 1, line
13, which read, "adjusted to inflation". He stated his concern
that the voters could have expectations based upon a certain
inflation rate.
8:51:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMAS indicated that although he could live
without that language, he thinks it would be better left in. He
said, "If we don't inflation-proof this, taxes will definitely
go back up on the rise and ... hurt the people we're trying to
help now."
8:52:50 AM
CHAIR SEATON clarified, "We're not ... inflation-proofing the
PFD, we're just inflation-proofing the principle of the
dividend."
8:53:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMAS responded that Chair Seaton's comment is a
good one. He said between now and the next time [the bill is
heard] "we'll probably have people telling us where we should be
going."
8:53:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO noted that, currently, the amount given out
as the PFD is equal for everyone. He observed, "This dividend
would be an unequal amount, even though it's using the same
permanent fund dividend and permanent fund ... that we started
with." He said that is an issue of inequality.
8:54:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMAS noted that "the old municipal aide grant"
was unequal. He said, "All wealth comes from oil right now, and
I believe everyone in Alaska should have an equal ... share of
that." He reiterated that he is trying to help out the
municipalities.
8:54:54 AM
CHAIR SEATON said the committee should be prepared to talk about
municipalities and nonmunicipalities. He said what is being
discussed is the issue that it would not be necessary to be a
municipality or subdivision of the state to qualify for the
community dividend. Chair Seaton said people will want to talk
about that.
8:55:40 AM
JON BOLLING, Administrator, City of Craig, testified in favor of
HB 144. He said the bill would essentially recreate the no-
longer-existing revenue sharing, municipal assistance program,
using funds from the earnings reserve account. He said the
proposed legislation would not negatively affect PFDs for
approximately 10 years. He opined that cities across the state
would be grateful to the legislature; the community of Craig has
responded to reduced sales and property taxes by eliminating
full-time staff by about 10 percent over the last 24 months due
to lagging revenues, particularly due to reductions in property
tax receipts. Creating a community dividend program would be an
enormous financial help. He highlighted that the bill would
provide for a statewide vote in the matter, allowing the public
to ultimately decide on the merits of "this important program."
8:57:34 AM
MR. BOLLING, in response to a question from Representative
Gatto, stated his belief that the current population of the City
of Craig, according to the Department of Commerce is 1,127.
8:58:02 AM
MR. BOLLING, in response to a question from Representative
Ramras, listed all the positions that the City of Craig
eliminated to adjust to its loss of revenue. He noted that the
alternative is raising taxes, but at this point, the city
council would rather attempt to [cut back] personnel, which will
mean some reduction in services. In response to a question from
Chair Seaton, Mr. Bolling reported that the City of Craig
currently has four police officers.
8:59:06 AM
JACK SHAY, Assembly, Ketchikan Gateway Borough; past president,
Alaska Municipal League, testified as follows:
We are extremely in favor of sending this advisory
vote to the people, especially when they can
understand what the impact on their local tax
situation is going to be. What this bill does,
essentially, is replace some of the former municipal
aide programs which have already been alluded to. As
a matter of fact, here, in our Borough and City of
Ketchikan, 18[-plus] years ago ... we received
somewhat over $4 million in state aide. And this is
not unusual; this is afforded to every municipality in
virtually every state in the Union. A little over $4
million, which today would be around $6 million.
MR. SHAY explained that the proposed legislation, if passed
after the advisory vote, would restore about half of what
Ketchikan has lost over the last 18-19 years. He noted that the
borough dropped from over $4 million to just a few hundred
thousand "this last year." He echoed the statements of Mr.
Bolling that "this has put a real crunch on our local
governments." Mr. Shay said the borough has received a cut of
over 90 percent in state aide. The bill would afford local tax
relief.
9:01:15 AM
MR. SHAY continued:
You need to understand that the permanent fund ... is
taxed by the federal government. If this legislation
comes to fruition and this dividend program is
adopted, it means the local tax payer will not pay one
cent - or a local tax relief which would be in the
realms of hundreds of dollars annually - ... until the
year 2010, and then there would be a ... reduction of
approximately $10, ... growing until the year 2015.
And then it would be about $50 at that point. In
other words, during ... the next ... 10 years or so,
for a cost of approximately $170 dollars, the local
tax payer would get a relief of over $2,000 in ...
less taxes. So, this is an important factor to
consider.
MR. SHAY said if people realize that they will save money both
in federal and local taxes, it should make [the program] much
more palatable. He stated, "When it comes to ... the
communities [that] might scheme to get this money, or who
otherwise would artfully maneuver the procedure, well that
wasn't apparent in the old formulas and in the old distribution
of the state monies for municipal aide and safe communities, and
so forth." He admitted that it might be "a hard sell" to
convince people that the plan will not cost a tremendous amount
from their dividends. Notwithstanding that, for all the
previously stated reasons, he said [HB 144] is excellent
legislation and should be moved out of the committee.
9:03:09 AM
MR. SHAY, in response to a question from Representative Gatto,
reported that - according to the statistics from the Permanent
Fund Corporation based on [reports from] the Department of
Community Economic Development - the population of the City of
Ketchikan is 7,691, while the population of the Ketchikan
Gateway Borough is 4,948, which totals 12,639. He added, "I
think we're a little more than that, but those are the figures
that are currently in place." He noted that the area has lost
numbers since its pump mill shut down, but "we're working hard
to replace them."
9:03:39 AM
TOM BOEDEKER, Manager, City of Soldotna; Legislative Committee
Chair, Alaska Municipal League (AML), stated his general support
of HB 144. He explained he thinks it's important to find a
balance between providing enough details for advisory votes, but
not to the point where voters feel locked in by a certain
feature. He suggested that many people might support the
program if the inflation-proofing language did not exist. He
posited that voters may think there is too much detail in
specifying the annual appropriation of $150,000,000, because
that sounds like a fixed amount. He remarked that the public
often doesn't recognize the discretion of the legislature to
appropriate lesser amounts and the existing language may look
like a mandate "to do $150,000,000." He expressed concern that
people might react to that, rather than looking at the overall
concept and its appropriateness in the context of funding local
government.
9:05:49 AM
KEVIN RITCHIE, Alaska Municipal League (AML), testifying on
behalf of AML, noted that there is a letter from AML in the
committee packet. In response to Representative Gatto's
previous attention to the populations in various municipalities,
Mr. Ritchie proffered, "I think if you add up Matanuska-Susitna
(Mat-Su) Borough, plus Palmer, plus Wasilla, plus Houston, that
will probably be the total you're looking for. So, I think what
they did was they took out some of the population from Mat-Su,
so you don't double [count]."
MR. RITCHIE noted that several years ago there was a tax cap
campaign that would have disallowed any municipality in the
state from charging, basically, over 10 mills of property tax to
support schools, and so on. When that effort started, the polls
showed that approximately two-thirds of the people thought
limiting taxes was a good idea. He said AML was instrumental in
getting together a coalition across the state comprised of
schools, chambers of commerce, and business organizations that
saw the downside of municipal governments not being able to
raise money necessary to run their operations. He said the vote
ended with three out of four Alaskans saying it is not a good
idea to make that limit, because they wanted the freedom to be
able to provide the kinds of services needed in their
communities.
9:07:33 AM
MR. RITCHIE indicated that the municipalities are the
governments closest to the people and he thinks that there is a
great opportunity for local government discussion and decisions
made on the kind of taxes and services needed in each community.
He mentioned the loss of police officers in the City of Craig,
and he said there are a number of cities throughout the state
that have no public safety whatsoever, unless a trooper can get
there at some point. He revealed that there are currently at
least 10 cities with no insurance coverage whatsoever, because
they do not have the local revenue to pay for it. He said that
liability affects everybody in the state.
9:09:01 AM
MR. RITCHIE said the community dividend is approximately 4 mills
of property tax relief across the board, for every community in
the state, and puts money into local government. That money
could be used in a variety of ways, including: local
contributions to schools, rebuilding the police force, or
straight tax relief. There is no cost until 2010, at which
point, according to calculations, the cost will be far less than
the tax relief that will be received every year. Mr. Ritchie
said, "We think that conversation is worth having with the
public."
MR. RITCHIE echoed the previous testimony of Mr. Shay and
pointed out that the money people give to pay their local taxes
has already been taxed by the federal government. Even the PFD
Alaskans earn is taxed. Mr. Ritchie estimated people pay 20-30
percent of what they earn in taxes. In contrast, he noted, "by
providing direct tax relief to communities through this process,
none of that money is taxed." Mr. Ritchie offered further
details.
9:10:47 AM
MR. RITCHIE said [AML] needs time to talk to municipalities,
school districts, and other organizations to see if they want to
"buy on." He repeated the sentiments of Mr. Boedeker that
getting the specifics down is important for the public. In
order to get people in a coalition to support the program, [AML]
needs assurance that the program will actually happen
approximately as stated. He expressed his hope that legislators
"would either be neutral or supportive of this when it becomes a
discussion item before the public." He said the question to ask
before final adoption is, "Can we get the quality of support
behind this that's going to really create a good conversation
with the public?"
9:12:11 AM
CHAIR SEATON stated concern that there are two issues:
municipal revenue sharing, which is to subdivisions of the
state; and community revenue sharing, which "is much more
broad." He said he doesn't know if that's a discussion that AML
can have, but he said the committee would have it and AML's
input would be helpful. He stated his intent to ask the
Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development
(DCCED) to give its input regarding the distribution to
nongovernmental communities.
9:13:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if there is a working definition of
"community".
9:13:32 AM
MR. RITCHIE said there is a current definition "in the old
revenue sharing" of what a community is and that definition
"could get transferred over." He said he thinks the question
asked by Chair Seaton is, "How do we provide services to
unorganized parts of the state, and how do we do it equitably?"
He said small towns try hard; most of them have a sales tax, but
can't have a property tax because they don't have enough taxable
property to make that effort worthwhile. He said some base of
support is necessary to buy insurance and to have a modicum of
public safety. He said, "Some base of funding is required. If
not through this type of program, you basically will have
virtually no services in the unorganized borough - people will
get nothing - which is a problem for a small community." He
offered an example.
9:15:32 AM
CHAIR SEATON reiterated the need for the committee to consider
governmental agencies and nongovernmental agencies. He said
that the committee would not take action on HB 144 today.
9:16:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS asked how much money would result from
keeping the $150 million in the fund and allowing it to
appreciate with compound interest over 10 years.
9:17:15 AM
CHAIR SEATON said he would like the Permanent Fund Division to
address that later.
9:17:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER noted that according to the "Municipal
Officials Directory," the City of Anvik has a population of 108,
no sales tax, property tax, or special taxes, and yet there are
11 city employees listed. She asked, "So, how would a community
like that -- how did this happen?"
9:18:05 AM
MR. RITCHIE reiterated that there is not much commerce going on
in the small communities and literally no ability to have a
property tax because of all the Native allotment land, federal
land, and small houses. There may be some ability for sales tax
if there happens to be a store in the town. He explained as
follows:
What normally happens is, they get a small amount of
money from the federal government, called a 'payment
in lieu of taxes,' and when there's federal land - I
mean the federal land that the federal government does
not pay property taxes on - they provide about a $15
million payment that's spread throughout the boroughs,
and then the organized cities within the unorganized
borough. [It's] not a lot of money, but I'm guessing
that what happens in these small towns is: Because
they have so little commerce, the money that they get
to support their services comes from washeteria fees,
utility fees, Bingo, and some other creative ways of
raising money if you're tax base is very, very low.
9:20:16 AM
MR. RITCHIE, in response to a question from Representative
Gruenberg, said the definition for community is in Title 29,
under municipal programs. He said he would get that information
to the committee directly after the meeting.
9:20:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO commented, "There's always a school, and so
as far as jobs are concerned, there's bound to be a few
employees that are paid because of the money that follows the
students."
9:20:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to adopt Amendment 1, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Page 2, Line 4, after "community" delete period; add
comma, then phrase "except that no less than 50% of
such community dividend shall be used to lower
residential property taxes."
9:21:21 AM
CHAIR SEATON objected.
9:21:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN stated that at the top of people's list of
concerns is that regarding property tax; therefore, he said he
thinks Amendment 1 is necessary to provide property tax relief,
and would help sell the idea of the advisory vote to voters.
9:22:59 AM
CHAIR SEATON noted that there are a number of communities that
don't have personal property tax and, in those cases, he doesn't
know if they would not get the dividend. He said the committee
would consider [Amendment 1] and bring it up at the next
hearing.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN noted that he was going to add "or to
relieve sales taxes"; however, Representative Thomas suggested
just leaving it at property taxes.
CHAIR SEATON announced that HB 144 [was heard and held].
HB 94-ELECTIONS
CHAIR SEATON announced that the last order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 94, "An Act relating to qualifications of voters,
requirements and procedures regarding independent candidates for
President and Vice-President of the United States, voter
registration and voter registration records, voter registration
through a power of attorney, voter registration using scanned
documents, voter residence, precinct boundary and polling place
designation and modification, recognized political parties,
voters unaffiliated with a political party, early voting,
absentee voting, application for absentee ballots through a
power of attorney, or by scanned documents, ballot design,
ballot counting, voting by mail, voting machines, vote tally
systems, initiative, referendum, recall, and definitions in the
Alaska Election Code; relating to incorporation elections; and
providing for an effective date."
The committee took an at-ease from 9:23:32 AM to 9:28:44 AM.
9:29:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to adopt the committee substitute (CS)
for HB 94, Version 24-GH1048\Y, Kurtz, 2/28/05, as a work draft.
9:30:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected.
9:30:18 AM
LAURA GLAISER, Director, Division of Elections, Office of the
Lieutenant Governor, in response to a request from
Representative Gruenberg, walked through Version Y and told the
committee where previously discussed amendments were
incorporated.
9:32:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG removed his objection to Version Y;
therefore, Version Y was before the committee.
9:32:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 24-
GH1048\F.7, Kurtz, 2/16/05, which read as follows:
Page 9, line 1, following "2002).":
Insert "The director may only approve a voting machine
or vote tally system if the machine or system
satisfies the requirements of AS 15.15.032(c)."
9:33:24 AM
CHAIR SEATON objected for discussion purposes.
9:33:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said Amendment 1 would track a law
passed last year, which requires the director [of the Division
of Elections] to provide a paper record for each electronically
generated ballot. He stated his understanding that "the
department has no objections."
9:34:59 AM
MS. GLAISER noted that current law does say that the current
director shall provide for a paper record of each electronically
generated ballot; therefore, she said she doesn't know whether
Amendment 1 is duplicative.
9:35:37 AM
CHAIR SEATON clarified that the only thing [Amendment 1] would
do is say that a voting machine could not be approved without a
[paper] ballot.
9:36:17 AM
MS. GLAISER, in response to a question from Representative Gatto
regarding whether a touch screen [voting machine] generates a
paper ballot, explained that the current version of the machine
owned by the state does not have an attachment that provides a
"voter verified paper receipt." She said there is a machine
currently in development that is being tested and will have a
paper receipt. She clarified, "It's not a ballot."
9:36:38 AM
CHAIR SEATON said it would provide for the possibility of a non-
electronic recount.
9:36:53 AM
CHAIR SEATON removed his objection to Amendment 1. There being
no further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
9:37:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 2, labeled
F.4, which read as follows:
Page 6, following line 5:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 9. AS 15.15.032 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(d) If the director provides for voting by use
of electronically generated ballots, the director
shall provide ballots in English, and may provide
ballots in one or more languages other than English."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 21, line 6:
Delete "secs. 20 - 43"
Insert "secs. 21 - 44"
9:37:47 AM
CHAIR SEATON objected for discussion purposes.
9:37:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said Amendment 2 "will help get out the
vote to a lot of people in the state."
9:38:23 AM
CHAIR SEATON offered his understanding that it would not be a
requirement for a ballot to be provided in many different
languages.
9:38:29 AM
MS. GLAISER answered that's correct. She said the language is
"may", thus the director may provide alternative ballot
languages. She reported that the division is currently required
by federal law to translate [ballots] into Tagalog for the
precincts in Kodiak. She said, "Right now we would attach no
fiscal note because it says "may", but should ... we have to do
that, there would be a fiscal note, because we're going to have
to hire translators and the program needs to be set. She said
if the ballot is done in audio for Yupik, for example, the
ballot would still appear before the person in English, because
there is written language.
9:39:36 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked, "Do you see this in anyway diminishing your
capacity to do that in audio?"
9:39:57 AM
MS. GLAISER answered no. In response to a follow-up question
from Chair Seaton, she said the division sees no problem in
having Amendment 2 in the bill. She added, "The point is that
... there will be candidates and pressure to translate into
other languages, and there will be an increased cost to do
that." She clarified, "We aren't currently mandated by federal
law to do that. If we decide go this extra step, it will be an
increased cost." She explained that the state does not have
licensed translators.
9:40:31 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if there is any difference in the division
deciding to offer ballots in another language or in audio,
versus "if this language is in there and somebody requests, and
you decide to do it or not to do it."
9:41:12 AM
MS. GLAISER replied no. She said she feels obligated to let the
committee know that there will be additional costs.
9:41:34 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked Ms. Glaiser if she thinks there may be a
legal consequence to the proposed language that would make the
division [feel it had to approve requests for certain languages
to appear on a ballot].
9:41:57 AM
MS. GLAISER said she would have to talk to the [U.S.] Department
of Justice to discern "whether it puts the state in that kind of
bind or obligation." She questioned where it would end if the
division were to provide a ballot in one language and many more
languages surfaced for consideration. She reiterated that,
under current law, the division could engage in a pilot project
"to test interests." She said, "It's a policy call by the
legislature if that's an investment the state wants to make in
translating the ballots in other languages."
9:42:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said this sounds like the law of unintended
consequences. He said he heard there are up to 90 different
dialects in the Anchorage school district alone, and there is no
way that the division could cover that many languages. He
stated, "This scares me." He added, "And I know it only says
'may', but I'm always suspicious of maybe someone requiring it
later." He stated his discomfort with Amendment 2.
9:43:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked what the threshold would be and how
people would "request it." She asked why just Tagalog is
required.
9:44:17 AM
MS. GLAISER responded that the federal law has a standard based
on the population of a community. She noted the languages
required in California. She said the numbers are derived from
the U.S. Census. She said the division is required to translate
not only the ballots, but also all of the voting posters. She
said, "They actually came in and monitored the division this
year to see that our training was complete [and] that our poll
workers could explain ... how to get help." No one else in the
state has reached the federally mandated threshold to require
translated ballots.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER indicated that she would like to see the
division continue to do what is required by federal law and, in
addition, offer the audio portion of ballots to those indigenous
Alaskan languages that are not written.
9:46:35 AM
MS. GLAISER responded, "We can still can do that. This was just
further clarification." She said the lieutenant governor has
discussed the idea of a pilot project to be done in one of the
Alaska Native languages.
9:47:14 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked Ms. Glaiser to get a legal opinion as to
whether there would be any ramifications of passing Amendment 2.
9:47:59 AM
CHAIR SEATON said he would like to hold Amendment 2 for that
legal opinion. However, he observed that enough of the
committee members indicated a readiness to vote on Amendment 2;
therefore, he put Amendment 2 back before the committee.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gruenberg and
Gardner voted in favor of Amendment 2. Representatives Gatto,
Elkins, Lynn, Ramras, and Seaton voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 2 failed by a vote of 5-2.
9:49:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved Am 3, labeled 24-GH1048\F.3,
Kurtz, 8/3/05, which read as follows:
Page 1, line 3, following the second occurrence of
"voter registration":
Insert "and other acts relating to voting that
may be done"
Page 1, following line 11:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Section 1. AS 13.26.332 is amended to read:
Sec. 13.26.332. Statutory form power of
attorney. A person who wishes to designate another as
attorney-in-fact or agent by a power of attorney may
execute a statutory power of attorney set out in
substantially the following form:
GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY
THE POWERS GRANTED FROM THE PRINCIPAL TO THE
AGENT OR AGENTS IN THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENT ARE VERY
BROAD. THEY MAY INCLUDE THE POWER TO DISPOSE, SELL,
CONVEY, AND ENCUMBER YOUR REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY,
AND THE POWER TO MAKE YOUR HEALTH CARE DECISIONS.
ACCORDINGLY, THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENT SHOULD ONLY BE
USED AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION. IF YOU HAVE ANY
QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT, YOU SHOULD SEEK
COMPETENT ADVICE.
YOU MAY REVOKE THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY AT ANY
TIME.
Pursuant to AS 13.26.338 - 13.26.353, I,
(Name of principal) , of (Address of
principal) , do hereby appoint (Name and
address of agent or agents) , my attorney(s)-in-
fact to act as I have checked below in my name, place,
and stead in any way which I myself could do, if I
were personally present, with respect to the following
matters, as each of them is defined in AS 13.26.344,
to the full extent that I am permitted by law to act
through an agent:
THE AGENT OR AGENTS YOU HAVE APPOINTED WILL HAVE
ALL THE POWERS LISTED BELOW UNLESS YOU
DRAW A LINE THROUGH A CATEGORY; AND
INITIAL THE BOX OPPOSITE THAT CATEGORY
(A) real estate transactions ( )
(B) transactions involving tangible personal
property, chattels, and goods ( )
(C) bonds, shares, and commodities transactions( )
(D) banking transactions ( )
(E) business operating transactions ( )
(F) insurance transactions ( )
(G) estate transactions ( )
(H) gift transactions ( )
(I) claims and litigation ( )
(J) personal relationships and affairs ( )
(K) benefits from government programs and military
service ( )
(L) records, reports, and statements ( )
(M) delegation ( )
(N) voting ( )
(O) all other matters, including those specified as
follows: ( )
______________________________________________________
___
______________________________________________________
___
______________________________________________________
___
IF YOU HAVE APPOINTED MORE THAN ONE AGENT, CHECK
ONE OF THE FOLLOWING:
( ) Each agent may exercise the powers conferred
separately, without the consent of any other agent.
( ) All agents shall exercise the powers conferred
jointly, with the consent of all other agents.
TO INDICATE WHEN THIS DOCUMENT SHALL BECOME
EFFECTIVE, CHECK ONE OF THE FOLLOWING:
( ) This document shall become effective upon the date of
my signature.
( ) This document shall become effective upon the date of
my disability and shall not otherwise be affected by
my disability.
IF YOU HAVE INDICATED THAT THIS DOCUMENT SHALL
BECOME EFFECTIVE ON THE DATE OF YOUR SIGNATURE, CHECK
ONE OF THE FOLLOWING:
( ) This document shall not be affected by my subsequent
disability.
( ) This document shall be revoked by my subsequent
disability.
IF YOU HAVE INDICATED THAT THIS DOCUMENT SHALL
BECOME EFFECTIVE UPON THE DATE OF YOUR SIGNATURE AND
WANT TO LIMIT THE TERM OF THIS DOCUMENT, COMPLETE THE
FOLLOWING:
This document shall only continue in effect for
________ ( ) years from the date of my signature.
NOTICE OF REVOCATION OF THE POWERS
GRANTED IN THIS DOCUMENT
You may revoke one or more of the powers granted
in this document. Unless otherwise provided in this
document, you may revoke a specific power granted in
this power of attorney by completing a special power
of attorney that includes the specific power in this
document that you want to revoke. Unless otherwise
provided in this document, you may revoke all the
powers granted in this power of attorney by completing
a subsequent power of attorney.
NOTICE TO THIRD PARTIES
A third party who relies on the reasonable
representations of an attorney-in-fact as to a matter
relating to a power granted by a properly executed
statutory power of attorney does not incur any
liability to the principal or to the principal's
heirs, assigns, or estate as a result of permitting
the attorney-in-fact to exercise the authority granted
by the power of attorney. A third party who fails to
honor a properly executed statutory form power of
attorney may be liable to the principal, the attorney-
in-fact, the principal's heirs, assigns, or estate for
a civil penalty, plus damages, costs, and fees
associated with the failure to comply with the
statutory form power of attorney. If the power of
attorney is one which becomes effective upon the
disability of the principal, the disability of the
principal is established by an affidavit, as required
by law.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto signed my
name this ____ day of __________, ____.
_____________________________
____
Signature of Principal
Acknowledged before me at
____________________________ ________________________
on ______________________________.
Signature of Officer or Notary
* Sec. 2. AS 13.26.344 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(p) In a statutory form power of attorney, the
language conferring general authority with regard to
voting shall be construed to mean that the principal
authorizes the agent to register the principal to
vote, request an absentee ballot for the principal, or
perform any other act relating to voter registration
or voting that a principal is specifically authorized
by statute to delegate to an agent."
Page 1, line 12:
Delete "Section 1"
Insert "Sec. 3"
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 3, line 8:
Delete "specifically"
Page 3, line 9, following "voter;":
Insert "the division of elections shall provide a
power of attorney form for this purpose on request;"
Page 4, lines 16 - 17:
Delete "as set out in AS 15.07.050"
Page 7, lines 14 - 16:
Delete "that specifically authorizes the other
person to apply for an absentee ballot on behalf of
the voter"
Insert "; the division of elections shall provide
a power of attorney form for this purpose on request"
Page 21, line 6:
Delete "secs. 20 - 43"
Insert "secs. 22 - 45"
9:50:50 AM
CHAIR SEATON objected to Amendment 3 for discussion purposes.
9:50:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said the word "voting" is defined on
page 4, lines 21-26 [as labeled on the amendment].
9:51:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked, "Do I understand correctly that
this would allow somebody to vote for someone if they have a
(indisc. -- voices overlapping)?"
9:52:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to lines 25-26, on
page 4 [as labeled on the amendment], and offered his
understanding that "that would be somebody to physically do it
if the person were incapacitated ...." He asked Ms. Glaiser if
she could confirm that.
9:52:29 AM
MS. GLAISER responded that she is not an attorney.
Notwithstanding that, she noted that the division does allow
someone to assist a person who is incapacitated with his/her
ballot. She questioned if "voting" is the right word on Page 2,
line 25 [as labeled on the amendment]. She indicated she is
concerned that the language does not lead someone to believe
that he/she - with the power of attorney - could vote for
somebody.
9:53:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG responded, "The intent there ... was to
mark the ballot at the direction of the person." He offered to
make an amendment to Amendment 3 to clarify that point.
9:53:36 AM
CHAIR SEATON said he thinks part of the confusion is on page 2,
line 25 [as labeled on the amendment], where the word "voting"
has been inserted, because that is the word that people will
see. He suggested that Representative Gruenberg use a phrase
such as "voting related acts". He offered further insight.
9:54:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to table Amendment 3.
9:54:46 AM
CHAIR SEATON said, "Okay." He added, "I think that people agree
the concept is good - the wording needs to be clarified."
9:55:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved Amendment 4, labeled 24-
GH1048\G.3, Kurtz, 2/9/05, which read as follows:
Page 5, lines 17 - 30:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 7. AS 15.10.090 is repealed and reenacted
to read:
Sec. 15.10.090. Notice of precinct boundary or
polling place designation and modification. The
director shall give full public notice if a precinct
is established or abolished, if the boundaries of a
precinct are designated, abolished, or modified, or if
the location of a polling place is changed. Public
notice must include
(1) whenever possible, sending written
notice of the change to each affected registered voter
in the precinct;
(2) providing notice of the change
(A) by publication three times in a local
newspaper of general circulation in the precinct; or
(B) if there is not a local newspaper of
general circulation in the precinct, by posting
written notice in three conspicuous places as close to
the precinct as possible; at least one posting
location must be in the precinct;
(3) posting notice of the change on the
Internet website of the division of elections; and
(4) providing notification of the change to
the appropriate municipal clerks, community councils,
tribal groups, presiding officers, Native villages,
and village regional corporations established under 43
U.S.C. 1606 (Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act)."
9:56:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that Amendment 4 tracks the
work that had been done by last year's House State Affairs
Standing Committee.
9:57:08 AM
MS. GLAISER said obviously the division offered language the way
it wanted it; however, she added that this is the legislature's
decision. She said the amendment would require a notice to be
published three times, whereas the division had requested "on
three different days". She asked if the proposed language of
Amendment 4 would allow for three ads to be put in the same
paper. She said, "I think that the way it was drafted, the
intent was to communicate that on three different days you would
see the same language before you." Regarding the posting of
notices in 3 conspicuous places, she reiterated, "We had offered
that it be 1 conspicuous place, ... because in many of the areas
it's difficult to find three conspicuous places." She explained
that in some of the small communities it is sufficient to post a
notice on a note board that is viewed by the community. She
indicated that the posting on the division's Web site has
increased. She noted, "This amendment actually requires us to
send a written notice directly to each voter." She questioned
whether there may be a point at which the division would be over
notifying. She reiterated that the division will do whatever is
decided by the legislature, and she noted, "the fiscal note's
approximately $20,000 on this." She explained that that is due
to increased mailing and notice costs.
9:58:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG in regard to posting 3 times, proffered
that it was certainly the intent of last year's committee that
it be on three different days.
9:59:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved an amendment to Amendment 4, on
page [1], line 11 [as numbered on the amendment], after "three"
to delete "times" and insert "different days".
CHAIR SEATON asked if there was any objection to the amendment
to Amendment 4. There being none, it was so ordered.
9:59:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, regarding three conspicuous places,
recollected that last year's committee spoke at length on the
subject and decided that there should be three places to post in
every precinct. He said, "This may be slight over-notification,
but people, I think, may observe something but not fully
register, and they have to see it several times." He added,
"And that was also the feeling, frankly, about the sending [of]
written notice." He concluded that he would not offer to change
that language.
10:01:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked Ms. Glaiser which part of the
fiscal note is the expensive part.
10:01:20 AM
MS. GLAISER replied that the posting in the conspicuous places
is not any different than current law, but the requirement to
mail to every voter and to post notice 3 times in a paper would
increase costs.
10:02:05 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that Amendment 4, [as amended], would be
held.
10:02:36 AM
CHAIR SEATON noted that he may open public testimony on HB 94
again at the next hearing of the bill, because he thinks it's
such an important issue.
[HB 94 was heard and held.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
10:03:21 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|