02/28/2008 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB54 | |
| HB269 | |
| HB353 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 269 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 54 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 353 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 28, 2008
8:08 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bob Lynn, Chair
Representative Bob Roses, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Andrea Doll
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Kyle Johansen
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 54
"An Act relating to construction of a legislative hall; and
repealing provisions relating to relocating the capital, the
legislature, or any of the present functions of state
government."
- MOVED CSHB 54(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 269
"An Act requiring the state to procure United States and Alaska
flags manufactured in the United States; and requiring state
buildings and schools to display only United States and Alaska
flags manufactured in the United States."
- MOVED CSHB 269(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 353
"An Act relating to the blocking of certain Internet sites at
public libraries and to library assistance grants."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 54
SHORT TITLE: CONSTRUCTION OF LEGISLATIVE HALL
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) NEUMAN
01/16/07 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/5/07
01/16/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/07 (H) STA, FIN
02/21/08 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/21/08 (H) Heard & Held
02/21/08 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/28/08 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 269
SHORT TITLE: REQUIRE AK/US FLAGS BE MADE IN USA
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) LYNN
01/04/08 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/4/08
01/15/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/15/08 (H) STA
01/17/08 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
01/17/08 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed to 01/19/08>
01/19/08 (H) STA AT 11:00 AM CAPITOL 106
01/19/08 (H) <Bill Hearing Rescheduled to 01/24/08>
01/24/08 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
01/24/08 (H) Heard & Held
01/24/08 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/14/08 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/14/08 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed to 02/28/08>
02/28/08 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 353
SHORT TITLE: PUBLIC LIBRARY INTERNET FILTERS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KELLER
02/06/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/06/08 (H) STA, FIN
02/28/08 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE MARK NEUMAN
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor, explained the changes
made in a committee substitute to HB 54.
PAUL D. KENDALL
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of himself in support
of HB 54.
REX SHATTUCK, Staff
Representative Mark Neuman
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered information regarding the FRANK
Initiative during the hearing on HB 54, on behalf of
Representative Neuman, prime sponsor.
NANCY MANLY, Staff
Representative Bob Lynn
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Reviewed changes made in Version K of HB
269 on behalf of Representative Lynn, prime sponsor.
VERN JONES, Chief Procurement Officer
Division of General Services
Department of Administration
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during the hearing
on HB 269.
DENNIS BAILEY, Attorney
Legislative Legal Council
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
269.
REPRESENTATIVE WES KELLER
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 353 as prime sponsor.
JIM POUND, Staff
Representative Wes Keller
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered a question during the hearing on
HB 353, on behalf of Representative Keller, prime sponsor.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR BOB LYNN called the House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:08:50 AM. Representatives Roses, Coghill,
Johnson, Gruenberg, Doll, and Lynn were present at the call to
order.
HB 54-CONSTRUCTION OF LEGISLATIVE HALL
8:10:02 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the first order to business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 54, "An Act relating to construction of a legislative
hall; and repealing provisions relating to relocating the
capital, the legislature, or any of the present functions of
state government."
[Before the committee as a work draft was the committee
substitute (CS) for HB 54, Version 25-LS0284\E, Cook, 2/20/08.]
8:10:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES moved to adopt the committee substitute
(CS) for HB 54, Version 25-LS0284\M, Cook, 2/25/08, as a work
draft.
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL objected.
8:10:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MARK NEUMAN, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor of HB 54, offered an explanation of the changes made in
Version M, as shown on a handout in the committee packet. He
said the changes were made in response to concerns expressed by
the House State Affairs Standing Committee. He explained the
deletion of the language in Section 3 of Version E, lines 5-15,
which was replaced with a new Section 3 of Version M, lines 5-
24, the topic of which was the review and approval of proposals
for a legislative hall. The new language would add a second
chance for proposals.
8:15:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL directed attention to a sentence on page 4,
lines 16-19, which read:
If the proposal selected is submitted by a
municipality and includes a site wholly or partially
on state land, the legislative council shall take all
action necessary to arrange for the transfer of the
land to the municipality at no cost, including
introducing legislation to accomplish that purpose.
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL asked if that means there would be no cost
for a municipality to acquire state land.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN responded, "Absolutely." He offered
further details. He stated, "That is just one way that we're
trying to make sure that this includes all of Alaska."
8:17:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN, in response to a comment by Chair Lynn,
confirmed that Juneau, as well, would have the opportunity to
come up with a proposal. If the municipality of Juneau did not
have sufficient land, it could encompass any available state
land surrounding the municipality.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN directed attention page 4, line 21, which
sets "the First Regular Session of the Twenty-Eighth Alaska
State Legislature" as the first time the legislature would
convene in the legislative hall. He said he would like to see
that language changed so that the first time the legislature
convenes in the legislative hall would be "after completion of
the project".
CHAIR LYNN called an at-ease from 8:19:08 AM to 8:19:21 AM.
8:19:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES noted that the language on page 1, line 8,
calls for "a new legislative hall". He asked if it is the
sponsor's intention to disqualify any attempts the City &
Borough of Juneau may make to upgrade the current capitol,
renovate the [Scottish Rite Temple] across the street, and build
a foot bridge between the two.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN replied that since the building across the
street is nothing more than a frame and would have to undergo
substantial construction, he would consider that new
construction. He talked about the aspects of the capitol
building that would necessitate major construction, for example,
its insufficient wheelchair access. He said new construction
would mean new uniform codes to be met.
8:21:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL asked Representative Neuman to clarify
whether his proposal is that municipalities would donate land
and build the legislative hall at no cost to the state.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN answered as follows:
It is my intent to allow communities to see if they
can come up with a proposal - to allow communities to
do all they can to come up with a proposal and submit
that. And whatever types of factors they have to use,
then that's what they have to use. If it involves
state land, we'll give them the state land, if that's
what it takes.
... However a municipality gets there, they can get
there. Now, if a municipality owns buildings, or
whatever, and they want to throw that in on the deal,
that's fine. That's certainly up to the communities.
It's just trying to make sure ... that we reach all
Alaska communities - all citizens of the state. This
isn't about any certain area; it's about all of
Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL said she presumes new facilities would need
bonding, and she said she thinks that would put smaller
communities at a disadvantage.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN suggested that, for example, smaller
communities could partner with Native corporations. He said
there are people who would love to have the opportunity to come
up with an idea for economic development in their communities.
He concluded, "This doesn't say we're moving the legislative
hall; this just says, 'Let's see if communities can come up with
a good proposal and offer that to the legislature.'"
8:25:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that the Alaska Supreme Court has
held, in Thomas v. Bailey 595 P.2d 1, 1979, that the transfer of
state land is an appropriation and therefore is not within the
power of the initiative process. He directed attention to page
4, lines 16-19, [of Version M], which read:
If the proposal selected is submitted by a
municipality and includes a site wholly or partially
on state land, the legislative council shall take all
action necessary to arrange for the transfer of the
land to the municipality at no cost, including
introducing legislation to accomplish that purpose.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked the bill sponsor to confirm that
a second bill - a type of appropriation bill - would be
necessary in order for such a transfer of land to be possible.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN confirmed that's what the bill language
anticipates.
8:28:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said, "A community couldn't petition to
do this, but we could certainly do that."
8:29:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES echoed Representative Neuman's response
that the bill covers that possibility in the language on page 4,
lines 18-19 [text provided previously].
8:29:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON returned to the issue of the
interpretation of the word "new". He offered a hypothetical
situation in which Anchorage donated the Eagan Center to be
remodeled into a capitol building, and he said that may not
technically be considered new construction. He suggested that
the language [on page 1, line 8] should read: "specifications
of a legislative hall".
8:30:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN said he would consider the Eagan Center "a
new place for us to meet." Notwithstanding that, he said he
thinks the bill language would be fine without the word "new".
8:30:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he wants to give Juneau every
opportunity to remodel to meet the needs of the legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN reiterated that deleting the word "new"
would not be problematic. In fact, he pointed out that the bill
title simply refers to "construction of a legislative hall".
8:32:16 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that he was reopening public testimony.
8:32:42 AM
PAUL D. KENDALL, testified in support of himself in support of
HB 54. He said the legislature must be "in the midst of" its
people and be accountable and engaging. He said he would like
to see a legislative hall in the Point MacKenzie area. He
opined that "Juneau's time has come and gone," and said the only
reason to support having a legislative hall in Juneau would be
for use during a 45-day retreat or to be maintained as a "backup
facility in case of an unexpected catastrophic event." He
stated, "So, I just wonder why you folks don't see it the same
as I do." He said cameras allow communication. He stated, "I
think that those cameras - the broadcasting capacity and
facility - should be under the control of our people and you
people - our leaders, as opposed to some ... corporation in
Juneau or elsewhere." He spoke of enhancing the brightness of
Alaska's future by bringing [the legislature] to "the center of
the people" as opposed to an isolated area such as Juneau.
8:37:21 AM
CHAIR LYNN closed public testimony.
8:37:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL removed her objection to the motion to adopt
the committee substitute (CS) to HB 54, Version 25-LS0284\M,
Cook, 2/25/08, as a work draft. There being no further
objection, Version M was before the committee.
8:37:47 AM
CHAIR LYNN moved to adopt Amendment 1, which read as follows:
Page 3, following line 5:
Insert "(20) a child care facility;"
Renumber the following paragraph accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected to suggest that Amendment 1 be
offered as a conceptual amendment to allow the bill drafter to
place it in the appropriate order within the bill.
CHAIR LYNN withdrew Amendment 1.
CHAIR LYNN moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2, the language
of which is identical to the withdrawn Amendment 1, but for the
fact that it would be called conceptual [text provided
previously].
8:39:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN said the bill drafter had requested that
[the language regarding a child care facility] be inserted as
[paragraph (20)].
CHAIR LYNN said he would maintain the language as a conceptual
amendment. There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 2 was
adopted.
8:39:52 AM
CHAIR LYNN moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 3, which would
require that there be no pillars blocking the view between the
public in the gallery and the legislators on the floor.
8:40:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES objected. He said from a construction
standpoint, he would rather have pillars blocking someone's view
than a collapsed building.
8:41:56 AM
CHAIR LYNN withdrew Conceptual Amendment 3.
8:42:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON moved to adopt Amendment 4, as follows:
On page 1, line 8:
Delete "construction of" and "new"
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said that would leave "specifications of
a legislative hall". In response to Chair Lynn, he confirmed
that the amendment would allow for a legislative hall whether or
not it was newly constructed.
8:43:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES objected to Amendment 4 to suggest the need
to remove "construction of" from the bill title.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON concurred.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES removed his objection to Amendment 4.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES moved to adopt an amendment to Amendment 4
to delete "construction of" from the bill title on page 1, line
1.
8:44:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN said he fears that [removing the language
from the bill title] may leave the reader to assume that the
bill refers only to buildings that have already been
constructed.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he wants to ensure that any building
in the state that could be remodeled into a legislative hall
would qualify under the bill language.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN suggested specifying that the building
could be remodeled or constructed.
8:46:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES noted that if a community does not have a
building already in existence [that would work as a legislative
hall], the only way it will meet the specifications of the bill
is if they construct a building.
8:47:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he thinks the decision would be made
based upon the best location and the best building. He
indicated that the Alaska Legislative Council may consider a new
building to be superior to one that has been remodeled or
refurbished.
8:48:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES restated the proposed amendment to
Amendment 4.
CHAIR LYNN announced that the amendment to Amendment 4 was
adopted.
CHAIR LYNN asked if there was any objection to [Amendment 4, as
amended]. No objection was stated, and Amendment 4, as amended,
was treated as adopted.
8:49:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 5, which read
as follows:
Page 1, lines 1 - 3:
Delete all material and insert:
""An Act repealing provisions commonly known as 'the
FRANK initiative' relating to relocating the capital,
the legislature, or any of the present functions of
state government and to the public's right to know the
cost of relocation and to vote on certain aspects of
relocation; and relating to construction of a
legislative hall.""
REPRESENTATIVES COGHILL, CHAIR LYNN, and [AN UNIDENTIFIED
SPEAKER] objected.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG spoke to Amendment 5. He directed
attention to Section 4 of Version M, which proposes to repeal
three statutes: [AS 44.06.050, 44.06.055, and 44.06.060]. The
repealer, he observed, is the only provision in the bill that
would be immediately effective upon the effective date of the
bill, and it would repeal [the Fiscally Responsible Alaskans
Needing Knowledge (FRANK) Initiative of 1994]. Representative
Gruenberg summarized the content of the three provisions, which
read as follows:
Sec. 44.06.050. Purpose of AS 44.06.050 - 44.06.060.
The purpose of AS 44.06.050 - 44.06.060 is to
guarantee to the people their right to know and to
approve in advance all costs of relocating the capital
or the legislature; to insure that the people will
have an opportunity to make an informed and objective
decision on relocating the capital or the legislature
with all pertinent data concerning the costs to the
state; and to insure that the costs of relocating the
capital or the legislature will not be incurred by the
state without the approval of the electorate.
Sec. 44.06.055. Relocation expenditures.
State money may be expended to relocate physically the
capital or the legislature from the present location
only after a majority of those voting in a statewide
election have approved a bond issue that includes all
bondable costs to the state of the relocation of a
functional state legislature or capital to the new
site over the twelve-year period following such
approval. The commission established in AS 44.06.060
shall determine all bondable costs and total costs
including, but not limited to, the costs of moving
personnel and offices to the relocation site; the
social, economic, and environmental costs to the
present and relocation sites; and the costs to the
state of planning, building, furnishing, using, and
financing facilities at least equal to those provided
by the present capital city.
Sec. 44.06.060. Commission.
The legislature shall establish a commission composed
of nine members, including a chairperson and two
persons from each judicial district, appointed by the
governor and confirmed by the legislature, to
determine the costs required by initiatives or
legislative enactments authorizing relocation of any
of the present functions of state government.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated, "Not only ... is this repealing
an important and fundamental act, but it's an act that was
established by an initiative." He emphasized the importance of
the legislature's being clear to the public when it changes or
repeals an initiative, and he noted that the Constitution of the
State of Alaska, Article II, Section 13, states: "The subject
of each bill shall be expressed in the title." Representative
Gruenberg directed attention to a relevant excerpt regarding the
STATE v. A.L.I.V.E. VOLUNTARY court case, which read as follows:
[1] Article II, section 13 requires that every bill
be confined to one subject and that there be a
descriptive title. These requirements are designed
"to prevent the inclusion of incongruous and unrelated
matters in the same bill in order to get support for
it which the several subjects might not separately
command, and to guard against inadvertence, stealth
and fraud in legislation."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to a handout with a
quote from [Sands, Sutherland Statutory Construction], which
read:
Additionally, most state constitutions require a title
which gives accurate notice of the contents of the
act.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that he does not believe Version
M gives adequate notice of the most important provision in the
bill: the proposed repeal of the FRANK Initiative. He said the
FRANK Initiative "grew out of a concept" that began in Florida,
called, "government in the sunshine," which opened government
and committee deliberations and ensured the public's "right to
know." He said, "And that's why I'm taking the unusual step ...
of introducing an amendment that makes it crystal clear what
we're doing."
8:54:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN responded that the bill clearly indicates
its proposed repeal of the FRANK Initiative on page 4, line 25,
of Version M. He said he thinks the legislature should apply
the FRANK Initiative to the cost of keeping the capital in
Juneau, including the cost of moving legislators and staff back
and forth twice a year. He described the FRANK Initiative as "a
real double-edged sword." He said other government buildings
are constructed throughout the state without the use of the
FRANK Initiative. He said the fiscal note shows the cost of
moving buildings and books, for example.
8:58:00 AM
CHAIR LYNN suggested that the words, "relating to the FRANK
Initiative", could be added after the statutes listed on page 4,
line 25.
8:58:44 AM
REX SHATTUCK, Staff, Representative Mark Neuman, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Neuman, prime sponsor
of HB 54, explained that the primary focus of the bill is
related to construction of a legislative hall. He stated, "The
Act is not to ... repeal the FRANK Initiative, as this amendment
would suggest; the Act is to build a legislative hall or provide
a facility for the legislature - and that may be in Juneau." He
said the three sections of statute related to the FRANK
Initiative primarily address "some sort of clarity in terms of
the cost." He echoed Representative Neuman's previous comments
that the bill proposes a legislative hall at a minimal cost of
$1. Mr. Shattuck related another problem: "... to enact this
would cause some complications with the FRANK Initiative; they
don't mesh well together." He said the bill identifies the cost
and offers a public process.
9:00:56 AM
CHAIR LYNN reiterated his suggestion.
[REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG nodded in concurrence.]
MR. SHATTUCK expressed concern that the result would be having
more than one subject in the bill.
CHAIR LYNN said he does not understand what the difference would
be between including the statute numbers and letting the reader
know the subject of the statutes, in terms of one method versus
the other adding a new subject to the bill.
MR. SHATTUCK said that would be a policy call of the committee.
Notwithstanding that, he reiterated his concern that the bill
not harbor more than one subject.
CHAIR LYNN remarked again on the similarity between providing
only statute numbers and providing a description directly
following those numbers.
MR. SHATTUCK responded by asking why, then, the bill sponsor
would not [include descriptions for all the statutes referred to
in the bill].
CHAIR LYNN responded, "I think the more transparent we are, the
better."
9:02:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL indicated his support for [Amendment 5],
even though he said he is not a "big fan" of the FRANK
Initiative. Regarding the initiative, he said, "Because what
you do is you have the nine-member commission, you draw from all
over the state, and it gets to pump up the cost and make it so
untenable that the people of Alaska will choke on it." He said
the FRANK Initiative could be transparent or could "very well be
used the other way." He said the problem with the bill title is
that it is "a red flag that says, 'Come and make this bill more
than it is.'" He said his opinion of the bill title differs
from that of Representative Gruenberg, because he sees the
language in the title as showing "what you are, in fact, doing."
In response to Chair Lynn, he clarified that he has no objection
to the bill title. He stated, "I think the people of Alaska,
then, based on the title, get a real choice: Should we have our
grandchildren pay for it or will somebody actually come and make
it economically viable to have a legislative hall?"
9:05:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES said other than putting the words "FRANK
Initiative" in the bill, he cannot see how [Amendment 5] would
change the meaning of the bill language, because the bill title
includes, "and repealing provisions relating to relocating the
capital". He said the only provision he knows of that fits that
description is the FRANK Initiative. He said he thinks it is
clear what is being repealed. He said the legislature chooses
which initiatives to support and which ones to do away with. He
said any other bill he has seen with statutes listed to be
repealed has not spelled out the names of the statutes. The
proposed amendment would require HB 54 "to go beyond what any of
the other bills I've seen since I've been here have."
9:06:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL said a year ago ethics were a big issue in
the legislature, and the whole idea behind that discussion was
to reinstate the public's trust. She said she thinks her
constituents want transparency and openness in politics, and she
does not think a statute number alone meets that desire for
transparency. Representative Doll said she has received 20-25
e-mails, and counting, from constituents who relate that they do
not want the FRANK Initiative repealed. She stated support of
Amendment 5.
9:07:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON stated for the record that HB 54 will
repeal the FRANK Initiative, and he said he does not know how
much more transparent it is possible to be. He explained that
he opposes Amendment 5, not because he is concerned about hiding
anything, but because of "the trend that we might be starting."
He said there is no bonding being proposed by HB 54, just an
annual cost of $1 to the state for the lease of a legislative
hall. He characterized Amendment 5 as "going a little bit
overboard."
9:09:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG cited a sentence from AS 44.06.055,
"Relocation expenditures", which read as follows:
The commission established in AS 44.06.060 shall
determine all bondable costs and total costs
including, but not limited to, the costs of moving
personnel and offices to the relocation site; the
social, economic, and environmental costs to the
present and relocation sites; and the costs to the
state of planning, building, furnishing, using, and
financing facilities at least equal to those provided
by the present capital city.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG emphasized that the costs of moving
personnel and offices is not bondable, many of the social,
economic, and environmental costs are not bondable, and some of
the costs to the state related to facilities are not bondable.
The state constitution already requires that any general
obligation bonds must be voted on by the people; however, the
nonbondable costs are only known of and voted on by the people
if the FRANK Initiative remains on the books.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to Representative
Johnson's remark that "we all know that this repeals the FRANK
Initiative," said everyone in the legislature knows because it
is their job to know, but everyone in the public does not know.
He said a lot of people weren't even born when the initiative
was passed and "won't know what we're talking about until their
right's taken away." He beseeched, "And if this is already
known, what is the problem, for goodness sake, in letting the
public know what we're doing?"
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he supports Chair Lynn's
suggestion to clarify within the text of the bill that the
statutes to be repealed relate to the FRANK Initiative, and he
would offer another amendment to propose doing just that. He
said people don't read these laws and those that do may not get
any farther than the title. He asked why the public should have
to go back to the last page of the bill to find language hidden
there, when they could find it right in the title. He suggested
if the committee wants to repeal a statute, that it do so with
transparency, otherwise, it will be contributing to the public's
lack of knowledge. He called Amendment 5 a "chicken soup"
amendment that merely discloses the contents of the bill.
9:13:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to a question from
Representative Roses regarding the language in AS 44.06.055,
offered his understanding that it relates to "a permanent move
of the legislative hall, not for special session."
9:14:51 AM
CHAIR LYNN moved to adopt a conceptual amendment to Amendment 5,
to add "which include elements of the FRANK Initiative on
repeal" on page 4, line 25, after the statute numbers.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he believes the repeal is of the
entire FRANK Initiative.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected to the conceptual amendment to
Amendment 5. He said based on Representative Gruenberg's logic
there should be descriptions of what is going on in the rest of
the bill in the title, as well. He said he may have almost been
talked out of supporting Amendment 5.
9:15:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG responded that he has never done this
before and probably will never do it again, but he emphasized
the importance of the FRANK Initiative. He said he accepts the
conceptual amendment to Amendment 5 that was moved by Chair
Lynn.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON objected to the conceptual amendment to
Amendment 5.
9:17:03 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gruenberg, Doll,
and Lynn voted in favor of the conceptual amendment to Amendment
5. Representatives Johnson, Roses, and Coghill voted against
it. Therefore, the conceptual amendment to Amendment 5 failed
by a vote of 3-3.
9:17:33 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gruenberg and Doll
voted in favor of Amendment 5. Representatives Roses, Coghill,
Johnson, and Lynn voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 5
failed by a vote of 2-4.
9:18:38 AM
CHAIR LYNN moved to adopt Amendment 6, [a stand-alone version of
the failed conceptual amendment to Amendment 5] as follows:
On page 4, line 25, following the statute numbers:
Insert ", which relate to the FRANK Initiative,"
There being no objection, Amendment 6 was adopted.
9:19:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed his appreciation of the
committee's adoption of Amendment 6.
9:19:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he would not be concerned if the
FRANK Initiative were not repealed as long as the costs involved
were not inflated. If that were the case, he said, the people
in his district would vote overwhelmingly to build a legislative
hall. He clarified that he does not think leaving the
initiative in the bill would have any effect on the outcome on
HB 54.
9:20:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES said, "I moved the CS."
CHAIR LYNN announced that a motion had been made to move CSHB
54, Version 25-LS0284\M, Cook, 2/25/08, as amended, out of
committee, with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL objected.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON, in response to Representative Doll,
clarified that his previous statement had not been a suggestion
for an amendment.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Roses, Coghill,
Johnson, and Lynn voted in favor of moving CSHB 54, Version M,
as amended, out of committee. Representatives Doll and
Gruenberg voted against it. Therefore, CSHB 54(STA) was
reported out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee by a
vote of 4-2.
The committee took an at-ease from 9:21:45 AM to 9:26:06 AM.
HB 269-REQUIRE AK/US FLAGS BE MADE IN USA
9:26:07 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the next order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 269, "An Act requiring the state to procure United
States and Alaska flags manufactured in the United States; and
requiring state buildings and schools to display only United
States and Alaska flags manufactured in the United States."
9:26:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES moved to adopt the committee substitute
(CS) for HB 269, Version 25-LS1013\K, Bailey, 2/27/08, as a work
draft. There being no objection, Version K was before the
committee.
9:26:42 AM
NANCY MANLY, Staff, Representative Bob Lynn, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Lynn, prime sponsor of
HB 269, discussed the two main changes made in Version K. The
first, she said, was the addition of a definition of
"manufactured in the United States" as meaning that "the flag
was assembled in facilities in the United States". The
definition would be in new statute, AS 36.30.321. Ms. Manly
explained the reason for the definition is because it is almost
impossible to determine where raw materials come from. The
second change, she noted, was the addition of the "TRANSITIONAL
PROVISIONS", on page 2, lines 11-16, of Version K, which was
incorporated into the bill after a recommendation from
Representative Doll at the previous bill hearing.
9:28:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG thanked all involved for tightening up
the language of bill, which he said is now constitutional. He
noted for the record that the committee had received legal
opinions from Dennis Bailey of Legislative Legal and Research
Services, dated January 24, 28, and February 13, as well as an
e-mail from Jeff Freidman stating concerns, which he said have
been addressed in Version K. He stated his desire that all
those documents be included in the committee packet.
9:29:56 AM
MS. MANLY, in response to a question from Representative Doll
regarding enforcement, said the bill proposes no penalties. She
stated, "We're just going to assume that the State of Alaska
will follow its own laws and the schools will also." In
response to Representative Doll, she said that after doing
research for the bill, she would estimate that there are four or
five firms that manufacture flags in the U.S.
9:31:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES said there are only four companies in the
United States that have been certified to manufacture U.S. flags
made solely of materials made in the U.S., but he does not know
about certification for Alaska flags.
MS. MANLY related, "When we were working on a draft for the
bill, we tried to use that certification, and [Legislative Legal
and Research Services] said, 'No, you couldn't do that.' So,
that's why we started getting off on a tangent for ... raw
materials and stuff, and then we just kind of tightened that up
in this version."
9:32:00 AM
CHAIR LYNN said he concurs with those who have called HB 269 a
"feel good" bill. He said as a military veteran, when he dies
there will be a flag on his coffin, and he certainly hopes it
will have been manufactured in the U.S. He remarked that the
suit he is currently wearing was made in China, but it is just a
"thing." A flag, on the other hand, is not just a thing; it is
an important symbol of what the nation stands for.
9:33:22 AM
VERN JONES, Chief Procurement Officer, Division of General
Services, Department of Administration, in response to a
question from Representative Roses, stated his belief that most
of the American manufacturers of U.S. flags also produce state
flags, and the State of Alaska, as a practice, has been buying
its state and U.S. flags from a source that buys its flags from
a U.S. manufacturer. In response to a question from
Representative Johnson, he said the determination of whether or
not to go through a competitive bidding process depends on the
dollar amount, and the amount that the state spends on flags do
not "rise to that level." He said the purchase of flags for the
state is categorized as "small procurements." In response to a
follow-up question from Representative Johnson, he confirmed
that mandating a source for flags does not violate the state's
procurement codes.
9:35:03 AM
MR. JONES, in response to a question from Representative Doll,
explained that there are "various levels of competition"
required in the state's procurement code. Procurements over
$5,000 must have competitive quotes, procurements over $25,000
must have written quotes, and procurements over $50,000 -
"formal" procurements - must be done with full competition with
public notice and a 21-day circulation period. He said he
thinks the procurement of flags for the state only amounts to
hundreds of dollars, not thousands.
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL stated, "It was interesting because we have
$15,000 just for the U.S. flags that you buy each year, and that
doesn't include Alaskan. So, I would imagine if you put in the
Alaskan along with the U.S., you're up to about ... $30,000.
So, it is not just a tiny little amount, but thank you for
clarifying that."
9:36:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES predicted that the school districts
probably would be the most impacted [by HB 269]. He noted that
there is a U.S. flag in every classroom, larger ones on display
throughout the building, and flags flown outside the building.
Most of the schools already have flags, but all the new
buildings and classrooms have none, he noted.
9:37:32 AM
MR. JONES responded, "What we're talking about as far as the
impacts of this bill is the difference you would pay for the
lowest prize, presumably foreign-made flags and the U.S. flag,
and I think our experience is there's not a great difference in
the price."
9:38:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his understanding that the
proposed legislation would not require every flag in every
classroom be American made - only the ones flying in the front
of the building.
CHAIR LYNN stated for record that the bill pertains to official
flags flown outside the building, not all the flags flown inside
the school, even though he would like to see all the flags be
American made.
9:39:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES remarked that when students stand up to
salute the flag, they are not saluting the flag flying outside
the building, but the ones in their classrooms. In response to
Chair Lynn, he said he does not have a problem with the bill as
it is, he just wants the record to be clear regarding what the
vote will be.
9:41:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said Section 1 refers to AS 14.03.130.
He read the first sentence [in subsection (a)] of that statute,
which read as follows:
(a) United States and Alaska flags shall be
displayed upon or near each principal school building
during school hours and at other times the governing
body considers proper.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he interprets that language to
mean only the flag that is in front of the school. He asked Mr.
Bailey if that is correct or if a clarifying amendment is
needed.
DENNIS BAILEY, Attorney, Legislative Legal Council, Legislative
Legal and Research Services, responded yes. He referred to the
proposed amendment to AS 44.09.030, in Section 4 of the bill,
and noted that [the current language of subsection (b) of that
statute] lists where the flags of both the United States and the
State of Alaska shall be displayed, weather permitting, and one
of those places, [as shown in paragraph (2)], is "in or near
every schoolhouse during school days." Mr. Bailey said he does
not see a specific requirement that a flag be displayed in each
classroom.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if an amendment is necessary to
clarify that "what we're talking about is the flag in front of
the building - one flag per building - maximum," not the flags
inside the building.
MR. BAILEY said the aforementioned statutes speak to a flag near
a school building, whereas the bill would "apply to any flag
under those sections that required would have to be purchased
from a manufacturer in the U.S."
9:43:50 AM
MR. BAILEY, in response to Chair Lynn, confirmed that the bill
would apply only to new flags that are purchased for display;
the transitional provisions in Section 5 would allow flags that
are already purchased to be used.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he understands that, but that is
not his concern. He reiterated his previously stated concern
regarding the need to specify to which flags in school districts
the bill would apply.
9:45:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved Conceptual Amendment 1, "that
we're, in each case, talking about the flag that's in the front
of the building."
9:45:23 AM
CHAIR LYNN objected to Conceptual Amendment 1. He said when the
flags currently shown in classrooms wear out, they will be
replaced with a flag in a storeroom, and when there are no more
flags in the storeroom, they will be replaced with a new flag
that has been made in America. He said he does not see the need
for Conceptual Amendment 1.
9:46:19 AM
MR. JONES, in response to Representative Johnson, said he is not
sure how many flags the State of Alaska has in reserve, because
the procurement system used is decentralized; each office or
department that needs a flag makes its own purchase. However,
he offered his understanding that Legislative Research generated
a questionnaire and "had some results from that."
9:47:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL said information she found shows that the
State of Alaska has 563 flags on hand. She said, "We purchase
472 each year; we display 232."
9:48:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in determining whether or not to
maintain his motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1, asked Mr.
Bailey:
Is it your interpretation that AS 44.09.030 and AS
14.03.130 simply refer to the ... main flag that's
flown in front of the building or on the building,
rather than - in the case of schools particularly - in
each classroom?
MR. BAILEY quoted AS 44.49.030(b) [language provided previously]
and said he thinks it is reasonable to interpret that the bill
would apply to flags flown in a schoolhouse.
9:49:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG maintained his motion to adopt
Conceptual Amendment 1. He read from Mr. Freidman's e-mail as
follows: "I believe this bill only applies to the primary
display flags outside the front of each building - page 1. If
applied to every classroom flag, the impact would be huge, as we
have thousands of classrooms in the district." Even when only
pertaining to future flags, Representative Gruenberg said, there
would still be a cost to the school district.
9:50:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES said he thinks that once the transitional
amendment was made, that alleviated the greatest concern the
school district had, because he said he thinks Mr. Freidman's
concern was in anticipating having to buy thousands of flags at
once. He said he thinks Conceptual Amendment 1 would water the
bill down to the point where "it's absolutely not even a feel-
good bill, it's a meaningless bill."
9:51:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew Conceptual Amendment 1.
9:51:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES moved to report CSHB 269, Version 25-
LS1013\K, Bailey, 2/27/08, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected. He said, "We start talking
about national symbol over nationalism." He explained that the
nationalism says, "We only can spend our money here," rather
than really produce a symbol. He said he appreciates when money
is spent in America. He added, "But then, under the "ism" that
I just said, we're going to make a law that says you must do it
that way. Then what ... we do is we put the symbol under a
whole different type of scrutiny than I ever really ... wanted
it to be."
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Roses, Gruenberg,
Doll, and Lynn voted in favor of moving CSHB 269, Version 25-
LS1013\K, Bailey, 2/27/08, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
Representatives Coghill and Johnson voted against it.
Therefore, CSHB 269(STA) was reported out of the House State
Affairs Standing Committee by a vote of 4-2.
HB 353-PUBLIC LIBRARY INTERNET FILTERS
9:54:08 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the last order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 353, "An Act relating to the blocking of certain
Internet sites at public libraries and to library assistance
grants."
9:54:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WES KELLER, Alaska State Legislature, introduced
HB 353 as prime sponsor. He said the bill is about controlling
access to pornography by children. He noted that distributing
electronic, indecent material to minors is a Class [C] felony.
Indecent material is defined in [AS 11.61.128]. Representative
Keller mentioned the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA),
which he said was challenged and upheld by the U.S. Supreme
Court in 2003. Currently in Alaska, he relayed, there are 89
public libraries. The issue before the committee is to decide
whether or not there should be a filter on the Internet, so that
children using Internet access in libraries will be protected.
He reported that 40 percent of the computers in the libraries
around the state do not have filters on them. Representative
Keller said the proposed legislation would require 100 percent
of the computers in libraries to have filters, which he said "is
in alignment with CIPA." The filters can be turned off by any
authorized person in the library. He named three filters
available: SquidGuard, Snort, and Websense. Two are free and
the other costs $50-$100 per router, with a $20 annual payment
for a license. He stated, "A filter is only a good as the
person installing and maintaining the filter." The bill does
not get into a lot of details about how the libraries are
supposed to install the filters, he said.
9:58:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER, in response to a question from Chair
Lynn, said the bill would pertain to any [library] that receives
state and federal funding, including the 89 public libraries.
9:59:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL said the librarian who runs the public
libraries in Juneau told her the Juneau Public Libraries receive
$18,000 in grant money from the State of Alaska annually, but to
implement the provisions of HB 353 would cost $10,000 a year.
She said she would like to take up discussion of that issue when
the committee next hears the bill.
10:00:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked the bill sponsor to coordinate
with his staff in getting feedback from librarians.
CHAIR LYNN warned that there are pornography web sites that, for
example, use a well-known government web address and just change
the domain name extension in order to lure unsuspecting computer
users to their site.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said the word "filter" is not carefully
defined. He indicated that there are usually two types of
filters: one blocks web sites, while another looks for
patterns. The proposed legislation presumes that libraries have
the best interests of children at heart; it just asks that the
computers be filtered to avoid children seeing that which is
spelled out in AS 11.61.128.
10:03:44 AM
JIM POUND, Staff, Representative Wes Keller, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Keller, prime sponsor
of HB 353, answered a question from Representative Gruenberg by
relaying that the bill sponsor has not asked for a legal opinion
concerning the proposed legislation.
[HB 353 was heard and held.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
10:04:08 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|