03/20/2008 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB353 | |
| HB261 | |
| HB266 | |
| HB366 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 366 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 412 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HCR 23 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 402 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 353 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 261 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 266 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 20, 2008
8:06 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bob Lynn, Chair
Representative Bob Roses, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Kyle Johansen
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Andrea Doll
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 353
"An Act relating to the blocking of certain Internet sites at
public libraries and to library assistance grants."
- MOVED CSHB 353(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 261
"An Act establishing a program of public funding for the
financing of election campaigns of candidates for state elected
offices, to be known as the Clean Elections Act."
- FAILED TO MOVE OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 266
"An Act relating to the approval and administration of child
care services by the Department of Administration primarily for
the benefit of state officers and employees; and providing for
an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 266(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 366
"An Act relating to an exemption from public disclosure of
certain appropriations from the dividend fund; and providing for
an effective date."
- MOVED HB 366 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 412
"An Act relating to the membership of the Alaska Legislative
Council and the membership of the Legislative Budget and Audit
Committee."
- BILL HEARING POSTPONED
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 23
Proposing amendments to the Uniform Rules of the Alaska State
Legislature relating to withdrawing measures, to sponsors of
measures, to prefiling measures, and to the three readings of
bills.
- BILL HEARING POSTPONED
HOUSE BILL NO. 402
"An Act relating to elections; relating to the definition of
'political party'; and providing for an effective date."
- BILL HEARING POSTPONED
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
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
02/28/08 (H) Heard & Held
02/28/08 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/04/08 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/04/08 (H) Heard & Held
03/04/08 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/06/08 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/06/08 (H) Heard & Held
03/06/08 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/18/08 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/18/08 (H) <Bill Hearing Rescheduled to 03/20/08>
03/20/08 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 261
SHORT TITLE: PUBLICALLY FINANCED ELECTIONS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) LEDOUX
05/15/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/15/07 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
01/25/08 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED
01/25/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/25/08 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
02/21/08 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/21/08 (H) Heard & Held
02/21/08 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/06/08 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/06/08 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/15/08 (H) STA AT 11:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/15/08 (H) Heard & Held
03/15/08 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/20/08 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 266
SHORT TITLE: STATE EMPLOYEE DEPENDENTS CHILD CARE CTRS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KERTTULA
01/04/08 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/4/08
01/15/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/15/08 (H) STA, HES, FIN
03/18/08 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/18/08 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/20/08 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 366
SHORT TITLE: DISCLOSURE : APPROPRIATIONS FROM PFD FUND
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) CRAWFORD
02/13/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/13/08 (H) STA, FIN
03/20/08 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE WES KELLER
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 353 as prime sponsor.
SUZANNE HANCOCK, Staff
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 261 on
behalf of Representative LeDoux, prime sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE BETH KERTTULA
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 266 as prime sponsor.
LEAH CARPENETI, Staff
Representative Beth Kerttula
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
266 on behalf of Representative Kerttula, prime sponsor.
FATE PUTMAN, Assistant Business Manager/Legislative Lobbyist
Alaska State Employees Association/American Federation of State,
County and Municipal Employees (ASEA/AFSCME) Local 52
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 266.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRY CRAWFORD
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 366 as prime sponsor.
DEBBIE RICHTER, Director
Central Office
Permanent Fund Dividend Division
Department of Revenue
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
366.
JERRY BURNETT, Legislative Liaison, Director,
Administrative Services Division
Department of Revenue
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
366.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR BOB LYNN called the House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:06:08 AM. Representatives Roses,
Johansen, Johnson, and Lynn were present at the call to order.
Representatives Coghill, Gruenberg, and Doll arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 353-PUBLIC LIBRARY INTERNET FILTERS
8:07:08 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the first 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."
[Before the committee as a work draft, adopted on 3/6/08, was
the committee substitute (CS) for HB 353, Version 25-LS1356\M,
Bannister, 3/5/08.]
8:07:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WES KELLER, Alaska State Legislature, presented
HB 353 as prime sponsor. He cited two sentences of a handout
entitled, "Fact Sheet Web Filtering," prepared by the Department
of Administration [included in the committee packet], which read
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
HB 353 contemplates securing independent internet
connectivity in libraries throughout the State. With
such independent connections, an end-point home
solution, such as NetNanny, Norton Internet Security
or WebWatcher for $60-$100 per station would
accomplish the goals sought in HB 353.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER emphasized that HB 353 does not address
the standard of filtering, but presumes that librarians care
about the children of Alaska. He characterized filtering as an
inexpensive safeguard.
8:09:29 AM
CHAIR LYNN stated his understanding that a filter can be set at
any level of protection, and he surmised that a password would
be used.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER related his understanding that that is
correct. He added that filters are available at Wal-Mart and
are user friendly.
CHAIR LYNN clarified that the purpose of the proposed
legislation is to require filters in libraries, but the level at
which the filter is set would be left up to the management of
each library. He reminded the committee that Version M of the
bill exempts the University of Alaska library system from the
proposed required filters, because the majority of its users are
adults.
8:11:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES reviewed that at the prior bill hearing,
there had been testimony from librarians of many libraries
across the state that there is no need for filters, because
children use a separate section of the library close to the
librarians' station where they are constantly being monitored.
He recalled that there had been discussion about having an
amendment to the bill that would allow "blocking" or
"monitoring" so that the legislation would not hamper those
libraries that were already monitoring their equipment.
Representative Roses spoke of testimony from [two librarians
from Tok, Alaska], during which they had emphasized that having
to add filters to the library may result in the closing of the
library.
8:13:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES moved to adopt Amendment 1, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Page 1, line 1, following "blocking":
Insert "or monitoring"
Page 1, line 11, following "filters":
Insert "or monitoring"
Page 1, line 13, following "shall":
Insert "(1)"
Page 1, line 14, following "AS 11.61.128(1)(A) - (F)":
Insert "; or
(2) use an alternate monitoring system to
prevent the viewing of Internet sites that depict the
items described in AS 11.61.128(1)(A) - (F)"
Page 2, line 3:
Delete "technology measure "
Insert "Internet software filter for the adult or
not use the alternate monitoring system"
Page 2, following line 5:
Insert a new paragraph to read:
"(2) "alternate monitoring system" means a
monitoring system that does not use Internet software
filters; in this paragraph, "monitoring system"
includes a method that enables public library staff to
see the screens of computers in the public library;"
Renumber the following paragraph accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES spoke to Amendment 1.
8:15:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL said she supports the amendment, but does
not support the bill. She remarked that if the amendment is
adopted, there is no longer any point to the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES said that was his first reaction to
Amendment 1; however, he explained that it would allow libraries
the option, without a tremendous amount of additional expense,
to relocate their computers to separate the areas where adults
and children use computers. In response to a question from
Chair Lynn, he said the bill would mandate libraries to use
filters or lose funding, which is why Amendment 1 is necessary
to give libraries another option.
8:18:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER concurred with Representative Doll and
spoke against Amendment 1, which he said provides no definition
of "monitoring".
CHAIR LYNN echoed Representative Doll's remark that Amendment 1
would kill the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES, in response to Representative Keller,
pointed out that Amendment 1 does define "alternate monitoring
system" in the proposed language that would be added to Page 2,
following line 5 [text provided previously].
8:19:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL removed his objection to Amendment 1. He
said the bill sponsor's intent is to prevent the viewing of
Internet sites that show items described in AS 11.61.128(1)(A)-
(F), and Amendment 1 would allow for monitoring to prevent that
same viewing.
8:21:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected to Amendment 1. He warned
that Amendment 1 could cause controversy between the state and
small libraries. He said, "We're going to be faced with a large
loss of revenue." He mentioned information from Ms. Berg [who
testified at the previous bill hearing] that shows that in
Chiniak, population 52, the total operating revenue is $6,350,
and the amount of state grants equals $6,250. He said, "They
will have to shut down if somebody finds that they're not
totally monitoring this stuff." Representative Gruenberg stated
that the second reason he opposed Amendment 1 is "because this
legislation is tied into the criminal code ..., and at least
potentially, this could render librarians and their staff
liable, as accessories, at least, to a felony." He said
libraries may not have to buy blocking, but they will have to
use staff time, and "there is not a dime put into this."
8:22:37 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Johansen, Johnson,
Doll, Roses, and Coghill voted in favor of Amendment 1.
Representatives Gruenberg and Lynn voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 1 passed by a vote of 5-2.
8:23:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to report CSHB 353, Version 25-
LS1356\M, Bannister, 3/5/08, as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
8:23:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL objected. She said she sees the bill as the
state intruding even more into the businesses of municipalities
and individuals, and even though the bill has been "softened,"
she cannot, on principle, support it.
8:23:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL disagreed that the bill was softened. He
said he thinks the requirement is still in place for a system of
monitoring in order to obtain grant monies. Furthermore, he
said, "Even though you reference a criminal code for the
description of the pornography, this is just based on granting,
and so, I don't anticipate there would be any criminal code
issues."
8:24:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG responded that AS 11.61.128 could
render librarians and their staff liable to criminal
prosecution.
8:25:26 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Johnson, Roses,
Coghill, and Lynn voted in favor of moving CSHB 353, Version 25-
LS1356\M, Bannister, 3/5/08, as amended, out of committee.
Representatives Gruenberg, Doll, and Johansen voted against it.
Therefore, CSHB 353(STA) was reported out of the House State
Affairs Standing Committee by a vote of 4-3.
The committee took an at-ease from 8:26:24 AM to 8:28:05 AM.
HB 261-PUBLICALLY FINANCED ELECTIONS
8:28:19 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the next order of business was SPONSOR
SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 261, "An Act establishing a
program of public funding for the financing of election
campaigns of candidates for state elected offices, to be known
as the Clean Elections Act."
[Before the committee as a work draft, adopted on 3/15/08, was
committee substitute (CS) for SSHB 261, Version 25-LS0929\M,
Bullard, 2/21/08.]
8:28:22 AM
CHAIR LYNN closed public testimony.
8:28:43 AM
SUZANNE HANCOCK, Staff, Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Alaska
State Legislature, testified during the hearing on SSHB 261 on
behalf of Representative LeDoux, prime sponsor. For the benefit
of Chair Lynn, who had been absent during previous meetings'
discussions of SSHB 261, she reviewed the bill sponsor's
involvement at those meetings.
8:29:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he was lukewarm on the proposed bill
until a couple days ago when a special interest group in
Virginia ran an add in Anchorage with his name in it that
claimed he is a corrupt legislator because of a "no
recommendation" vote he made on a bill. He said there is not a
lot he can do about it. He spoke of the possibility of not
being able to fight off a well-funded group with public funds
and the ability of a group to raise money to attack an
individual. He remarked, "If they're attacking me for a vote I
haven't made, imagine what they're going to do for the votes I
have made." He offered his understanding that the group in
Virginia has not registered with the Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC) and there is no way to trace where its money
comes from. He clarified:
Where my opposition to this bill was slight before, it
is now become vehement. I ..., and the people that
support my points of views, need the ability to assist
me in fighting this outside attack, and I don't see
any other way we can do it with public funds. And
unless this bill takes a serious turn and either
eliminates third-party expenditures or seriously
curtails third-party expenditures, there's no way I
can even support it.
CHAIR LYNN said the issue to which Representative Johnson
referred is related to aerial wolf hunting and has absolutely
nothing to do with "these other issues."
8:32:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES said the bill does address the issue that
Representative Johnson brought up. He added, "Quite frankly,
the way it addresses it is even scarier than the process." He
continued:
If an independent expenditure occurs in a campaign,
and you feel as the candidate - and you are
participating in the Clean Elections process - that
you have been wronged, you have the ability to appeal
to the ... administrator of the Clean Elections
process, and require them within two days to determine
whether or not you've been wronged by this third-party
expenditure.
If indeed the determination is that you have been,
then they have to match whatever amount of money was
spent to attack you or to support the candidate
running against you, up to three times the allowable
... expenditure for the year. Well, what is an
allowable expenditure for the year? In the primary
[election] year, it's $17,600. So, three times that
would be $52,800 that could be matched to you as a
candidate if you participate in the Clean Elections
process, because third-party candidates or [political
action committees] (PACs) are working against you or
for the candidate that is opposing you. That's for
the primary. In the general [election] it's three
times $26,400, which is $79,200.
So, ... are the citizens of this state ready to put
their permanent fund dividends at risk to fund
political campaigns? Because I can tell you right
now, if you take $79,200 and $52,800, ... that's over
$130,000. If we have 50 ... candidates running
potentially every year. What's the limit? I mean,
where does this go?
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES said he has seen the ad to which
Representative Johnson referred, and although it does not
mention his own name, it just as easily could have, since he
sits on the same committee and passed the same bill out of
committee. He stated that if he were part of a Clean Elections
process and saw that the entire legislature had been called
corrupt, he would go to the administrator and say, "I have been
wronged by this ad; I need to defend myself; this is an
expenditure that qualifies; I need the matching fund."
8:35:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES stated that the proposed bill does not
address in-kind contributions, and he questioned how the Clean
Elections process would deal with that issue. He emphasized
that there are numerous issues of concern that he will state for
the record if the bill continues to move forward. He said the
objective of the bill has not worked in other states that have
tried Clean Elections. There have been states that have passed
a Clean Elections Act only to repeal it, and others funded Clean
Elections, then withdrew the funding. He mentioned California's
Proposition 89, regarding Clean Elections, which was failed by
75 percent of those who voted.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES stated that Clean Elections is a serious
issue that has the potential to be costly to the state and to
totally revamp the way Alaska's elections system works. He said
he thinks the committee should be examining every single report
available regarding Clean Elections to determine whether the
information is appropriate and whether or not amendments need to
be made to the bill. He explained that although there are
elements of the bill that are good and try to reestablish
confidence of the public in the political process, the bill will
actually unravel the whole process and will not meet its own
objective.
8:37:53 AM
CHAIR LYNN noted that the bill had been amended to remove the
reference to Clean Elections from title, and now the title uses
the term, "public funding of elections".
8:38:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN stated his opposition to SSHB 261.
8:39:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL expressed appreciation for the comments that
had been made, but said she thinks the issue is one that needs
discussing and, thus, should make it to the House floor. She
stated support for SSHB 261.
8:40:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES concurred with Representative Doll's remark
that the bill needs lots of discussion, but said that will not
happen on the House floor in a substantive manner without
delving into the aforementioned reports. He offered further
details.
8:42:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL said she would support holding the bill if
such a discussion would be held.
CHAIR LYNN said because of the 90-day session, there is probably
not the time available to have this discussion.
8:43:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he appreciates what Representative
Roses said about public action committees. He said he does not
think the bill addresses "the kind of attack that's going on
against us right now," which is why he does not support the
proposed legislation.
8:44:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that SSHB 261 would be heard next
by the House Judiciary Standing Committee and the House Finance
Committee, so there would be plenty of time to discuss the
issues.
8:44:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to report the committee
substitute (CS) for SSHB 261, Version 25-LS0929\M,
Bullard/2/21/08, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
8:44:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVES ROSES, JOHNSON, and COGHILL objected.
8:44:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES said he realizes that the legislature is in
a 90-day session and the committee has limited scheduled meeting
times; however, he indicated that he would be willing to
schedule additional meeting times to give time for adequate
discussion of the bill. He offered to head a public forum.
CHAIR LYNN indicated the need to hold Saturday meetings because
of the 90-day session.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES said he also appreciates the fact that the
bill is scheduled to be heard by two other House committees. He
stated that when a bill is sent to a committee on which he sits,
he hopes that the prior committee did a good job working on the
bill before passing it on, rather than sending it on in
fragments, hoping that the next committee will put it back
together. He said he thinks the committee is rushing the
process and using the 90-day session as an excuse. He stated,
"I feel like we want to move this on because it has some
controversy connected to it. I feel like we're moving it on
because it's a bill that has a lot of difficulty and will garner
a tremendous amount of attention and support. That's exactly
why I can't move it out of this committee."
8:47:16 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gruenberg, Doll,
and Lynn voted in favor of moving CSSSHB 261, Version 25-
LS0929\M, Bullard, 2/21/08 out of committee. Representatives
Roses, Coghill, Johansen, and Johnson voted against it.
Therefore, Version M failed to move out of committee by a vote
of 3-4.
HB 266-STATE EMPLOYEE DEPENDENTS CHILD CARE CTRS
8:47:56 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the next order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 266, "An Act relating to the approval and
administration of child care services by the Department of
Administration primarily for the benefit of state officers and
employees; and providing for an effective date."
8:48:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BETH KERTTULA, Alaska State Legislature,
introduced HB 266 as prime sponsor. She said, "At the heart of
this is the hope that the state can step forward in allowing
departments and employees - if they find it necessary - to have
space for a private contractor to come in a do childcare." She
said that [providing that child care] would have a huge
economical and societal impact on Alaska. She noted that there
is a committee substitute available, which clarifies that the
department would actually have to make a determination as to
whether there was a lack of availability of child care
sufficient to justify an approval of a child care center, and
which clarifies that there is "no intent to have any
competition."
8:50:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 266, Version 25-LS0846\E, Wayne/Mischel,
3/17/08, as a work draft. There being no objection, Version E
was before the committee.
8:50:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA, in response to a question from
Representative Gruenberg, noted that the new language added in
Version E is found on page 2, lines 3-6, which read as follows:
(b) Before approving the establishment of a
program that provides child care services under AS
39.90.200 - 39.90.290, the department shall review the
availability of state-licensed child care services in
the municipality in which the program would be located
to determine if there is a lack of availability
sufficient to justify the approval.
8:50:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES said although he supports the concept of
the bill, he is concerned that if a child care contractor
allowed into a state building were to "fold," the state would be
responsible for taking over the operation of the child care
center.
8:51:29 AM
LEAH CARPENETI, Staff, Representative Beth Kerttula, Alaska
State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Kerttula, prime
sponsor of HB 266, directed attention to page 3, lines 3-4,
which read:
(b) Upon approval of the department, the
sponsoring state agency may be responsible for the
operation of the child care center when
(1) procedures under AS 36.30 fail to
procure a qualified service provider; or
(2) the service provider's contract is
cancelled and attempts to procure another qualified
service provider are unsuccessful.
MS. CARPENETI explained that there are enough "hoops" to jump
through and the responsibility would not revert automatically.
8:52:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES referred to a sentence that begins on page
3, line 13, which read:
Neither the operator nor any personnel employed by or
at a child care facility shall be considered to be
employees of the state unless a state agency operates
the facility under AS 39.90.240(b).
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES said that language concerns him. He
acknowledged that plenty of people need child care, but he does
not think the state needs to be in the position of running child
care facilities. He said if the state opens the door to child
care in one place, it will have to do so everywhere across the
state.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said she appreciates Representative
Roses' concern, but it is not the intent of the bill that that
happen. She said the plan uses components such as finding a
provider and departmental decision-making. She added, "But it
certainly is a policy call for the committee if you want to
allow that as a fail-safe or not. We did keep it in as an
absolute last choice."
8:54:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN mentioned the child care in the Federal
Building and asked for information pertaining to it.
MS. CARPENETI, in response to questions from Representative
Johansen, noted that HB 266 is modeled on the federal bill that
made possible the child care facility in Juneau's Federal
Building. She noted that that facility used to be run by an
organization based in Fairbanks, but a few years ago it changed
to a board-run organization. She offered her understanding that
the space for the child care facility in the Federal Building is
provided [by the federal government]. The proposed legislation
would allow for the state to provide the space or pass the cost
for it along to the independent contractor.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN asked if there is any possibility that
the federal government could end up "on the hook" regarding any
part of the aforementioned child care facility.
MS. CARPENETI relayed that all the individual federal agencies
in Juneau's Federal Building come together to cover the
following costs of the child care facility: rent, utilities,
and maintenance.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN asked for confirmation that the state
would not operate the facility but would have a contract with an
organization that would operate it.
8:57:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA pointed out that while not in Juneau, in
other arenas in the country the federal government does operate
child care centers.
MS. CARPENETI added that the federal government could choose to
operate the child care facility in Juneau's Federal Building if
it wanted to.
8:58:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to a "Legislative
Research Report" dated June 19, 2007, [included in the committee
packet], which he said shows a trend in the United States to
provide [child care].
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA confirmed that some states do provide
child care.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG observed that at least 22 states do so.
8:58:50 AM
MS. CARPENETI, in response to Representative Gruenberg, said she
does not know how many private companies offer their employees
child care services, although the numbers of employers that do
are increasing. She said the bill sponsor has statistics that
show the positive benefits of onsite child care. She said the
reason for the increase in facilities is because more and more
households have "all of the available parents" in the workforce.
In response to a follow-up question from Representative
Gruenberg, she confirmed that an increasing number of companies
are offering "pro-family" or "work life" options, which include
not only onsite child care, but also the opportunity to work
from home. Furthermore, some employers will buy "slots" in
nearby child care facilities for their employees to use when
their children have sick days, for example.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked, "Do you know if the state
provides that kind of alternative working arrangement that would
alleviate the need for child care?"
MS. CARPENETI replied that she does not believe the state buys
any child care slots. In response to a follow-up question, she
said she knows an increasing number of states are looking into
"options like that," but she said she would have to look into
the matter to find out more in-depth information.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked that it certainly makes it
easier for parents to work when states offer options related to
child care. Parents fight a difficult situation if they cannot
get child care or work via telecommunication. He asked what
kind of financial arrangement is made by states that offer child
care options and whether it is affordable for employees.
9:01:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA offered her understanding that
California and Florida offer a sliding scale fee.
9:02:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked if there is any provision in the
state's union contract that would require the state to provide
child care in all its facilities once it offers it in one.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA responded as follows:
I have no idea, and if that were the case, that would
be a completely separate issue from this. This was
inserted into the bill solely as ... the complete,
last option, so that there was some stop gap. If the
committee thinks it's inappropriate to start at this
point with that, we can take it out of the bill and
talk about it more. But it was really for the areas
where we know there aren't any child care providers at
this point.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON explained that he does not want the State
of Alaska to find itself in the position of having to provide
child care statewide, and he would like the record to show that
that would not be the result of the proposed legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said she doesn't think the committee
would not want to preclude "that." She stated her belief that
people should have child care throughout state agencies.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he supports the concept of the bill,
but reiterated that he doesn't want the state to end up
responsible for paying for child care facilities.
9:05:27 AM
FATE PUTMAN, Assistant Business Manager/Legislative Lobbyist,
Alaska State Employees Association/American Federation of State,
County and Municipal Employees (ASEA/AFSCME) Local 52, said
there is nothing in the collective bargaining agreement that
addresses child care facilities in state facilities. He stated,
"I would consider it to be probably a permissive subject of
collective bargaining. It may be something that in the future
we would want to do, but our intent would be, of course, that
everybody be able to have child care services in their
facilities." He added, "It wouldn't be something that we would
prohibit anybody else from doing."
MR. PUTMAN, in response to Representative Johnson, said he
thinks the idea of collective bargaining is that everyone is
treated the same.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON concluded that that means providing child
care in just one state facility could be an issue.
9:07:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL said she would like to see the state take
leadership and offer child care to all its state employees. She
talked about the economic impact of parents in the workforce.
CHAIR LYNN said he does not want to expand the bill to include
child care facilities throughout the state.
9:09:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked how much an employer's offering
child care increases that employer's competitiveness in
attracting and keeping good employees.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said the amount of people who have
contacted her office regarding the issue indicates that the
employer's competitiveness would be increased quite a bit. She
said there is research supporting that.
9:09:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON, regarding Representative Doll's point,
said some legislators want to control the growth of government
while others do not. He said although this issue is one that he
would want to embrace, he is not a proponent of increasing the
power of government to do a job that the private sector can do.
He stated, "I'm not prepared to make the leap that the state
should be every thing to every person." He said he would
dislike seeing the state putting Juneau's child care facilities
out of business by taking over the role of child care provider.
9:10:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN said he supports the concept of the
bill, because the benefit of having children nearby their
parents at work is that it is good for employees' morale and
increases job attractiveness. However, he said he does not
support getting "hooked into having a state-run day care
center."
CHAIR LYNN indicated that he concurs with most of what
Representative Johansen expressed.
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL opined that the proposed legislation is
important and needs to be passed. She assured fellow committee
members that she wants to stay on track and "not move into the
larger issues."
9:13:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA clarified that the idea of having a
state agency run the child care is intended only for areas in
which there is no other choice. She proffered that if it is the
committee's wish to amend the bill to take out that fail-safe
measure, then the following sections would need to be removed
from the bill: page 3, lines 3-8 and 13-15. She said passing
the bill without that language would highlight the areas where
the fail-safe was needed, and another bill could be introduced
at that point to address the issue.
9:14:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES agreed with all of the positive aspects of
the bill mentioned thus far, but emphasized the importance of
letting the public know that the state would be providing only
the space, not picking up the tab for running the service. He
said his daughter runs a child care facility and the biggest
issues she faces are regarding space, utilities, and complying
with state law - not her ability to run the center or hire
employees.
9:16:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1, as
follows:
Page 3, lines 3-8:
Delete language
Page 3, lines 13-15, following "program.":
Delete "Neither the operator nor any personnel
employed by or at a child are facility shall be
considered to be employees of the state unless a state
agency operates the facility under AS 39.90.240(b).
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES clarified that the intent of Conceptual
Amendment 1 is "to remove the fail-safe for the state taking
over the operation." Even without the language, he said, he
thinks the bill is a valuable asset for state employees.
9:17:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected to Conceptual Amendment 1. He
talked about the problem the State of Alaska is having in
recruiting and retaining employees under its latest retirement
system plan, and he predicted that employees will quite working
for the state in areas that would have no child care if
Conceptual Amendment were to be adopted. He said he views HB
266 as a first measure in addressing the problem of lack of
retention. He said he would encourage the state to provide
alternative methods of working for the state, such as
telecommuting, because he said Alaska is a state that is mainly
rural.
9:19:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES stated that he thinks the proposed
legislation, even with the proposed amendment, will still
attract and retain employees. He explained that the
proportional cost of child care will be proportionally less in a
state-owned facility, and he said that will attract workers.
9:20:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said the bill was much larger in scope
four years ago and has been streamlined. She expressed
appreciation for the feedback of the committee, and said she
thinks that Representative Roses is correct that the bill, even
with Conceptual Amendment 1, will serve to attract employees to
work for the State of Alaska. She said she would prefer the
bill "have a little bit of movement today," rather than demand
the fail-safe provision be left in it.
9:22:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG removed his objection. There being no
further objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted.
9:22:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL asked if the child care offered in the
Federal Building offers a substantial savings to the employees
with children.
9:22:41 AM
MS. CARPENETI indicated that there is a cost savings resulting
from the fact that the rent and utilities are paid for by the
federal government and the employees are charged on a sliding
fee scale, depending on their ability to pay.
CHAIR LYNN remarked that he does not know how much child care
costs.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES proffered that the cost starts at
approximately $215 a week per child.
9:23:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN said he pays $1,500 a month, total, for
his three children's child care.
9:23:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON indicated that the adoption of Conceptual
Amendment 1 has increased his already existing support of HB
266.
9:24:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON moved to report (CS) for HB 266, Version
25-LS0846\E, Wayne/Mischel, 3/17/08, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 266(STA) was
reported out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 366-DISCLOSURE : APPROPRIATIONS FROM PFD FUND
9:25:15 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the last order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 366, "An Act relating to an exemption from public
disclosure of certain appropriations from the dividend fund; and
providing for an effective date."
9:25:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRY CRAWFORD, Alaska State Legislature,
presented HB 366 as prime sponsor. He said a law that was
passed which took the permanent fund dividend away from those
who are incarcerated had the unintended consequence of taking
child support away from the children of those incarcerated. The
proposed legislation, he explained, would allow those children
to receive that money.
9:27:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked if there is any provision in the
bill that would allow the Department of Revenue to fill out the
application on behalf of the child if the child's incarcerated,
non-custodial parent refused or chose not to fill it out.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD responded that those incarcerated are
not able to apply, which is why the bill sets up the ability for
the department to provide a grant to the children.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON stated his understanding that the
Department of Corrections would actually have to fill out a form
to get the money, essentially applying on behalf of the inmate.
He said he supports the concept but wants to ensure the
mechanism is there to ensure there is communication through the
department.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD reiterated that the bill does not deal
with people who are eligible, but rather those who are
ineligible due to felony or multiple misdemeanors.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON clarified that he is concerned about the
steps the Department of Revenue would take in providing the
grant.
9:30:57 AM
DEBBIE RICHTER, Director, Central Office, Permanent Fund
Dividend Division, Department of Revenue, in response to
Representative Johnson's concern, explained the process. She
said if an incarcerated individual applies for a PFD, he/she is
denied. She said the Department of Revenue pays the Department
of Corrections based on a calculation, which she specified is
not based upon an actual head count.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON stated his assumption that if HB 366
passed, the department would apply a similar calculation to get
the money to the appropriate people, and there would not be any
real interaction.
MS. RICHTER answered that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked how the process would actually
work.
MS. RICHTER said she is not sure, but was assured by Jerry
Burnett of the Department of Revenue that the process would be
dealt with between [the Child Support Services Division] and the
Department of Corrections.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said that works for him.
9:33:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES stated his support for the concept of bill,
although he indicated that the bill "does nothing for those
children whose parents are incarcerated that aren't receiving
child support." He surmised that those children need the money
just as badly as those under the child support provision. He
questioned whether - should the bill pass - it would be the
responsibility of the Alaska Permanent Fund Board to determine
who the money gets funneled to, or if the money would go as a
lump sum to be distributed by another entity.
9:34:31 AM
MS. RICHTER, in response to a question from Representative
Johansen, stated that anyone can apply for a PFD, but
incarcerated individuals will be denied. In response to a
follow-up question, she explained that an application enters the
PFD database and the denial is based on information provided by
the Department of Corrections.
9:35:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL asked why an incarcerated person would apply
if he/she knows the application will be denied.
MS. RICHTER replied that she wishes she knew the answer to that.
In response to a question from Representative Doll, she
explained that the formula used to figure out how much DOC gets
"is not based on the actual eligible people who are
incarcerated; it is based on the number of people incarcerated."
9:36:56 AM
JERRY BURNETT, Legislative Liaison, Director, Administrative
Services Division, Department of Revenue, confirmed Ms. Richter
is correct: the calculation is based on the number of people
incarcerated in the prior year, not whether or not they are
eligible. The distribution between DOC and the Council on
Sexual Assault is done in the budget process and has nothing to
do with the number of people incarcerated, he added.
MR. BURNETT, in response to Representative Doll, stated:
I would guess that we'll have a few more people
incarcerated this year .... The formula said 10,188
people ... for the '07 dividend. It will probably be
more than that - I'm guessing more people are
incarcerated. The dividend this year will be some
amount which, based on current projections, will be
more than the '07 [dividend]. So, I'm thinking we're
dealing with an amount of money here that's totaling
somewhere near $20 million.
... If these people were eligible and we were
garnishing them for child support, we could be
potentially garnishing up to $10 million from those
individuals, had they been eligible for dividends and
were able to apply. ... There's ... just over 10,000
people who are ... not eligible, but we don't know if
they would have been eligible if they weren't
incarcerated.
MR. BURNETT noted that "this" will be effective next year,
"since all the money is appropriated in the FY 09 budget
already."
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL offered her understanding that there are
5,500 people in the prison systems, so when she hears Mr.
Burnett say there are 10,000 people, she wonders "where these
people are."
MR. BURNETT said he could not say exactly where the people are.
He noted that he used to serve the administrative director of
the Department of Corrections, and therefore can say that there
are a number of people who are incarcerated for short periods of
time during any year or were incarcerated in previous years.
The average sentence length is not multiple years; therefore,
numbers can be easily run up to as many as 40,000 people who may
be in and out of prisons in a year. He concluded, "So, ... a
count at any time is not representative of the number of people
who are in and out of the prison system."
9:40:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked if the grants to minor children of
incarcerated individuals would equal the amount of the PFD in
any given year.
MR. BURNETT said the proposed legislation does not make that
clear.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated the need to clarify that issue.
He asked how a minor child of an incarcerated individual is
found.
MR. BURNETT said the Department of Revenue's Child Support
Services Division has a case on almost every child who has been
subject to child support in Alaska, and the division has
identified approximately "5,000 of the 10,000 here."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked if the expectation is that the
grant would be automatic or that there would be an application
process involved.
MR. BURNETT replied that the department has not really spent
much time related to how this would really work, but since a
case is set up for each child, the amount of money going to the
children is known, as is the amount of debt from the parents.
He made a point of noting, "This does not off-set the debt of
the incarcerated parent in any way." He said he thinks the
process would be a fairly simple one.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked the bill sponsor if his intent is
that the grant would be equivalent to a dividend or if it would
be in place of a designated child support amount.
9:42:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD answered it would replace the amount of
the dividend.
CHAIR LYNN commented that a lot of children should be getting
child support but do not.
MR. BURNETT responded that if an application was made, those
children would be eligible for child support, and a case could
be established. He clarified, "Anyone who's incarcerated,
there's an automatic minimum child support due from them on a
monthly basis of $50 for a child."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, in response to a question from Chair
Lynn, explained that he is satisfied to have on the record that
the intent of the sponsor is to make the grant be the amount of
the dividend for that year.
9:44:33 AM
MR. BURNETT told Representative Coghill:
What we would do if this bill were to pass is we would
develop a program - regulations with that amount - and
then, during the budget process, for the FY 10 budget,
we would go to OMB and propose that the money be
split, so that that much money goes to the child
support grant program [and] that the rest goes to
Corrections and [the] Council on Domestic Violence and
Sexual Assault.
9:45:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES asked if a child could apply on behalf of
an adult.
MR. BURNETT answered no, since the parent incarcerated would not
be eligible for a dividend.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES explained that he asked the question
because although it easy to define who is receiving child
support, it is not easy to find those that are not receiving
child support. Representative Roses asked if a person can apply
on behalf of a disabled parent who cannot apply for him/herself.
MR. BURNETT responded yes. He emphasized the difference in this
case is that [incarcerated parents] are not eligible for
dividends.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES asked, "But this would ... allow the child
to be eligible for what would have been theirs had they been
eligible, correct?"
MR. BURNETT replied:
This method ... goes around the statute in a sense,
and allows that child to ... receive that money,
which, if their parent were not incarcerated and were
eligible, we would be garnishing. We garnish 100
percent of dividends for people who have child support
arrearages. There is no limitation on our
garnishments.
9:47:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated his understanding that for an
incarcerated parent, "this could be in lieu of child support,"
but a custodial parent could still apply on behalf of a child
for the child's dividend, in which case he/she would get the
dividend.
MR. BURNETT responded that the child would still get his/her
dividend, but in the event that a child does not get a dividend
by the time he/she turns 18, because no one has applied on
his/her behalf, the child has two years after the 18th birthday
to apply for all past dividends.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said, "I just want it to be very clear
that this is not replacing a dividend, but [is] in lieu of child
support - equivalent to a dividend."
MR. BURNETT replied that that is essentially correct. He added:
Although, it does not relieve the non-custodial parent
who is incarcerated of any of their responsibilities.
CHAIR LYNN closed public testimony.
9:49:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to report HB 366 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HB 366 was reported out of the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
9:49:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN reported on the work of the House State
Affairs Standing Committee's subcommittee assigned to study
bills related to the issue of conflict of interest. He reported
that there is as yet no recommendation for the full committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
9:52:24 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|