HB 206: ELECTIONS AND ELECTRIC COOP ELECTIONS Number 025 REPRESENTATIVE ELDON MULDER, PRIME SPONSOR OF HB 206, read his sponsor statement into the record. (A copy of this sponsor statement may be found in the House Community and Regional Affairs Committee Room, Capitol 110, and after the adjournment of the second session of the 18th Alaska State Legislature, in the Legislative Reference Library.) He added, "I have a work draft of a committee substitute (CS), that would make the bill applicative to telephone cooperative elections also. ...The CS also makes clear that...the bill would only apply to elections for a seat of the Board of Directors electrical or telephone cooperative if the cooperative provides power or service to at least 10,000 customers or more." Representative John Davies arrived at 1:14 and Representative Con Bunde arrived at 1:15. REPRESENTATIVE MULDER continued, "The original fiscal note has been revised for the committee substitute and...is pared down to $1,900 annually." Number 100 REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES MOVED to ADOPT CSHB 206 (CRA). There were no objections. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES referred to an additional AMENDMENT. REPRESENTATIVE MULDER said he had never seen that AMENDMENT, but on hearing it he said, "If I understand the gist of the AMENDMENT...the essence here is to allow these different cooperatives to exempt themselves. ...The question is a philosophical one, when there are thousands of dollars being spent on an election, and trying to determine the outcome of an election, is it or is it not in the public's interest to know who's trying to influence the election." Number 137 REPRESENTATIVE ED WILLIS asked if Native corporations could also be included in CSHB 206 (CRA). REPRESENTATIVE MULDER said, "I believe they're private...I think we have limited ability to influence or effect their elections. If you notice, we don't with the bill (HB 206) and the new committee substitute (CSHB 206 (CRA)), address only public cooperatives, not all telephone companies because we cannot influence the other telephone companies, only the cooperatives...they are subject to public laws." Number 162 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES addressed the AMENDMENT, "It's a simple amendment... I would just point out that the existing law as it applies to the municipalities, allows the municipality a similar option. That is, they can put an election before their respective constituency as to the question of whether or not their particular officials will be subject to APOC (Alaska Public Offices Commission) monitoring. And this would afford the effected utilities cooperatives in exactly the same way." REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES then MOVED to DISCUSS the AMENDMENT. VICE CHAIR JERRY SANDERS OBJECTED, but WITHDREW his OBJECTION when it was pointed out that the motion was only to discuss the amendment, not adopt it. Number 211 REPRESENTATIVE MULDER said, "There's a self-interest involved in the entire affair. If they don't want to disclose, they'll opt out of it. More or less it's self- defeating. ...I think you're granting them an abuse in self-interest." REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said, "I think there's a slight misunderstanding here, this does not suggest that the board can do this unilaterally. This proposed new language that Representative Mulder is bringing forth, if adopted would apply to every utility unless the utility or the cooperative put a vote before their membership and a majority of their membership voted to exclude the officers from this provision. And I would point out that's exactly the process that's in law right now with respect to municipalities." CHAIRMAN OLBERG asked, "You are adding the words 'electrical cooperative or telephone cooperative' to the existing statute in effect, is that correct?" Number 255 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES confirmed that was correct. REPRESENTATIVE MULDER apologized for his misunderstanding and said he had no objection to this amendment. KAREN BOORMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA PUBLIC OFFICES COMMISSION, testified via teleconference from Anchorage saying, "The Commission has taken a neutral position on this bill (HB 206). Our fiscal note is a modest fiscal note for training, changing materials to be current with the law, and overtime for current staff. But there is one other item that would be of assistance to us if this bill passed, and that is, there is no direct connection between APOC and the electric and telephone cooperatives, and their is a provision in regulation right now...which requires the municipal clerk to notify APOC after the filing deadline of the names of candidates and their addresses. If there was something similar in the statutes for electric and telephone cooperatives, it would make administration of these provisions much easier." Number 288 REPRESENTATIVE MULDER said, "I think it's appropriate...it makes a lot of sense to include that provision." He then asked if that would add costs to the fiscal note. MS. BOORMAN replied in the negative. REPRESENTATIVE MULDER asked Ms. Boorman if she had specific language for this change to CSHB 206 (CRA). MS. BOORMAN suggested adapting the existing language for municipalities. CHAIRMAN OLBERG suggested CSHB 206 (CRA) be brought up again Tuesday, March 23, 1993, after a redraft. REPRESENTATIVE MULDER asked if it was the wish of the committee to incorporate Representative Davies' change as well. Number 333 VICE CHAIR SANDERS OBJECTED to the inclusion of Representative Davies' change and said, "I feel that by allowing the organization to exempt themselves we actually gut the bill (CSHB 206 (CRA))... If they're spending money to get elected, they can spend money to get it exempted just as easily." CHAIRMAN OLBERG paraphrased, "You're suggesting that the same powers that are being brought to bare now to influence the election could influence the election of the membership..." REPRESENTATIVE MULDER said, "I think Representative Sanders has a pretty good point in the sense that, (with) a municipality you don't have an interest group, per se, lobbying to exempt itself. But you definitely would in the case of an electrical or telephone cooperative where you do have dominant players who would see a disadvantage for disclosure." REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said, "I just think we ought to provide the same ability for the voters to decide the question we've provided in the case of the municipalities." REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS asked that this discussion be continued when CSHB 206 (CRA) is brought back Tuesday. Number 374 CHAIRMAN OLBERG suggested Representative Mulder return on Tuesday with two drafts of CSHB 206 (CRA), one incorporating both changes discussed, another just incorporating Ms. Boorman's change. He called an at ease at 1:30 and reconvened at 1:34.