HOUSE BILL 94 "An Act making a supplemental appropriation for costs of elections operations; and providing for an effective date." CHARLOT THICKSTUN, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ELECTIONS, OFFICE OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR, provided the Committee with handouts [Attachments 3-6]. Attachment #4 illustrated the current work plan from the Division from 2/01/93 through 4/30/93. 1. Catch-up after General Election continues; input of voter information in time to produce precinct registers for REAA/CRSA, municipal and borough elections. Archiving General Election voted ballots and precinct materials in progress. 2. Input of registration forms from the Permanent Fund Dividend packet running over a thousand per week, statewide. Input required in time to produce precinct registers for REAA/CRSA, municipal and borough elections. 6 3. Budget-Fiscal Work - FY 94 reapportionment increment being submitted. Supplemental legislation in House and Senate in process. Responding to requests for fiscal notes and testifying in legislative committees, as necessary. Legislative budget and audit continues. Training fiscal staff on-going. Co-Chair Larson asked if the requested amount of $372,963 dollars would pay for present staff and provide the necessary funds to meet voter registration until 5/01/93. Ms. Thickstun stated it would. Co-Chair MacLean questioned the calculation of the request provided by the Division of Elections. Ms. Thickstun offered to provide the corrected figures. Co-Chair MacLean questioned the travel component for February. Ms. Thickstun replied the figure included travel and contractual fees. Representative Brown added the total request as of 1/19/93 was $891,500 dollars. She asked if the current budget submitted would be a reduction from that request. Co-Chair Larson pointed out that the original request was through 6/30/93. The current figures cover operations through 5/01/93. Representative Hanley questioned the $4 thousand dollar difference between requests made in April and May. Ms. Thickstun replied that operating costs and personnel services would be less in April. Co-Chair MacLean pointed out accurate figures had not been provided to the Committee. She suggested discussion be continued when the Division of Elections can provide the corrected figures. (Tape Change HFC 93-19, Side 1). Co-Chair Larson provided the Committee with Attachment #7, a memorandum and order provided by Judge Weeks addressing attorney fees due municipalities from the reapportionment suit. He asked for discussion and consideration of HB 94 and the fees. REPRESENTATIVE ULMER asked the Committee to consider the information provided from the 2/08/93 order, as provided by Superior Court Judge Weeks, as the exact amount of money due to the plaintiffs for attorney fees and costs. There is no longer any dispute regarding that part of the reapportionment lawsuit at the Superior Court level. She asked the Committee to include these amounts in the 7 supplemental provided to the Division of Elections. Representative Grussendorf supported paying these fees itemized in Attachment #7. He noted the process has cost a lot of money and the political subdivisions should receive the amount of money which they have spent and to which they are legally entitled. Co-Chair Larson asked the Committee to consider alternatives to HB 94. Representative Hanley stated his concern with guaranteeing elections to continue in March and April. Representative Parnell echoed Representative Hanley's concerns and suggested that the issues be kept separate. Representative Hoffman pointed out that the requested allocations need to be refigured by the Division of Elections. He asked that they provide more information to the Committee. Representative Therriault asked if the fees determined by Superior Judge Weeks were negotiable. Representative Ulmer stated these fees are what is owed by the State of Alaska. Representative Therriault thought the two matters should be kept separate. Representative Parnell asked if the plaintiffs can move for reconsideration of the amounts granted through the court order. DON CLOCKSIN, ESQ., WAGSTAFF, POPE & CLOCKSIN, ANCHORAGE, ALASKA, stated that technically there is a right for reconsideration of any order. Although, he added, there is nothing left to reconsider from the court order provided by Judge Weeks. Judge Weeks ruled in favor of the State. The figures are much lower than the total amount of money which was accrued by the parties litigating the case. The State does have the authority to appeal the decision. Representative Brown asked if the figures listed in Attachment #7 included interest. Mr. Clocksin stated that interest had not yet been calculated. Representative Hanley asked to hear from the Department of Law. Co-Chair MacLean pointed out that the Department of Law does have $1.87 million dollars allocated in the supplemental, although that does not cover the total fees to date. Representative Grussendorf pointed out that the plaintiffs represented are constituents and he would like to see them repaid. He added the Department of Law will represent the Office of the Governor. 8 Representative Brown suggested the plaintiffs be provided the designated allocations. Currently there are new plans for reapportionment and this would allow them to participate in those proceedings. Representative Brown added the corrected information from the Division of Elections and the plaintiff's allocations should be included in a committee substitute bill. Representative Martin disagreed with paying the amounts allocated in the Superior Court order. He referenced papers submitted last year containing information regarding the effect of reapportionment and specifically the Democratic Party's involvement. Co-Chair Larson stated the Committee was currently discussing the judgement provided by Judge Weeks. Co-Chair Larson and Co-Chair MacLean disagreed with Representative Martin. Mr. Clocksin assured the Committee that the Court ordered award is for work directly involved with litigation over reapportionment. Representative Ulmer stated that the reapportionment lawsuit is directly related to the Division of Elections supplemental. She stressed the importance of the timeliness in paying this debt. It would be best for the plaintiffs and best for the State because of the accumulated interest. Representative Brown stated she disagrees with the comments of Representative Martin. Representative Grussendorf felt that if the House Finance Committee reimburses the plaintiffs, the Administration would then more carefully consider their future proposal. Co-Chair Larson asked the Division of Elections to provide corrected information to the Committee. He noted that Legal Services would be requested to draft a proposed bill, sponsored by the House Finance Committee, dealing with reimbursement to the municipalities for expenses incurred during reapportionment (HB 146). Representative Hoffman reiterated his concern with the high turnover in fiscal officers and the organizational efficiency within the Division of Elections. Co-Chair Larson stated that HB 94 would be HELD in Committee for further discussion.