HB 94 "An Act making a supplemental appropriation for costs of elections operations; and providing for an effective date." CSHB 94 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation. CHARLOT THICKSON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ELECTIONS, OFFICE OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR spoke on behalf of HB 94. She stressed that the Division will be out of funding by February 14, 1993. She presented members with calculations indicating that $312,263 thousand dollars would maintain the Division's basic functions through April, 1993 (Attachment 1). Representative Therriault asked if the Division would have funds to maintain a skeleton staff after April. Ms. Thickstun replied that there would be no funds available for personnel after April 1993. 1 Representative Therriault clarified that temporary clerks in Fairbanks will be able to help with the backlog in Fairbanks. Representative Hanley MOVED AMENDMENT #1: To delete on line 4, "$891,500," and add "312,263." Representative Grussendorf expressed his concern that funding contained in HB 94, not be diverted for uses other than those outlined in Attachment 1. Representative Brown MOVED to AMEND, AMENDMENT #1: delete on line 5, "for the fiscal year ending June," add "through April". Members discussed the AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT #1. Representative Parnell asked if the Division had essential work which would continue past April, 1993. Ms. Thickstun replied that all essential work would be completed prior to the end of April. Representative Hanley expressed support for AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT #1. He agreed with Representative Grussendorf that the funding should be spent as the Division has indicated in Attachment 1. Ms. Thickstun assured him that the Division intends to use the funds as indicated in their memo (Attachment 1). Representative Martin asked if the Division had any margin to allow for a recount election. Ms. Thickstun replied that the Division could try to cover their needs by returning to a 30 hour week. Representative Martin noted that elections in Alaska are often close. He stressed that the State of Alaska must pay for recount elections that are within 1 percent. Co-Chair Larson observed that HB 94 will only keep the Division operating until the end of April, 1993. He emphasized that members are concerned with prior expenditures by the Division. Continued funding for the Division will be addressed after the Ombudsman's report and the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee's audit. Ms. Thickstun clarified that recount elections would only occur for Rural Educational Attendance Area (REAA) and Costal Regional Service Area (CRSA) elections. She stated that the Division would be able to perform a REAA or CRSA recount election. Co-Chair Larson noted that a motion was still pending. He restated the motion to AMEND, AMENDMENT #1: delete on line 5, "for the fiscal year ending June," add "through April". There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. 2 Representative Navarre provided members with Amendment #2 (Attachment 2). Representative Navarre MOVED to adopt AMENDMENT NO. 2. Amendment 2 would include court costs and attorney fees awarded in Southeast Conference v. Hickel. He stressed that the Attorney General has indicated that the State of Alaska will not appeal the decision. He emphasized that 10.5 percent interest will accrue until the State pays the judgement. He asserted that it makes good fiscal sense to settle the judgement immediately. Representative Martin noted that Judge Weeks only signed the order on February 6, 1993. He asserted that the Judgement is being "railroaded through" and is "circumventing the normal system of government." STEPHAN (NEIL) SLOTNICK, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW noted that the Department of Law expects the settlement amount to change. He pointed out that plaintiff Leavitt has indicated that the settlement contains a clerical error. The amount due to plaintiff Leavitt should be $216,369.18. Representative Grussendorf referred to discussions which took place on the House Floor during debate on HB 68. He asserted that promises were made by the Majority at that time, that the award contained in Amendment 2 would be addressed in the next available vehicle. He asserted that HB 94 is the "next available vehicle". He reminded the members that the Attorney General represents the Governor not the Legislature. He stressed that the Governor must be held responsible. Representative Martin observed that the Department of Law has other judgements pending. Mr. Slotnick agreed that other judgements are included in FY 94 judgements and claims legislation. He added that the award contained in Amendment 2 is included in the judgement legislation. The judgements and claims legislation is expected to be passed at the end of session. He noted that it is uncommon for judgements to be separated from the Department's requests for judgements and claims. Representative Navarre suggested that the Governor's reapportionment plan caused the plaintiffs to file suit. He noted that the reapportionment process is on going. He asserted that the plaintiffs should be reimbursed in order to allow them to pursue additional actions that they deem are necessary to their cases. Co-Chair Larson assured members that the Committee will act on the award issue expediently. He reminded members that HB 3 146, contains an appropriation to the Department of Law for the Southeast Conference judgement. House Bill 146 is schedule for hearing by the House Finance Committee on February 15, 1993. Co-Chair Larson read portions of a letter from Ernest W. Brannon, Mayor, Matanuska-Susitna Borough. "The Attorney General's Office has opposed the fee and cost request every step of the way. All the briefing is now complete before the superior court and we expect a ruling soon...Just as important, delay will result in a waste of state funds since all the plaintiffs are entitled to statutory interest, currently 10.5 percent, from June 25, 1992 until fees are paid." Representative Hoffman spoke in support of Amendment 2. He noted that the other body failed to pass HB 68. He suggested that failure to include Amendment 2 would delay action on the judgement. REPRESENTATIVE ULMER referred to a conversation she had with the Attorney General. She relayed that the Attorney General had assured her that the State of Alaska would not have the resources to pursue an appeal to the Southeast Conference v. Hickel judgement by Judge Weeks. Co-Chair Larson wondered if the addition of Amendment 2 would slow funding for the Division of Elections as contained in HB 94. Representative Brown felt that the issue of funding for the Division of Elections was more controversial than the court ordered awards. Representative Navarre stressed that the Administration had the opportunity to ask for a supplemental to the Division of Elections during the 2nd Special Session of the Seventeenth Legislature. He asserted that poor planning on the part of the Administration should not constitute an emergency on the part of the Legislature. Representatives Hoffman and Grussendorf spoke in support of Amendment 2. Representative Grussendorf felt that Amendment 2 would expedite HB 94. REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE spoke in support of Amendment 2. He observed that the Reapportionment Board was established without sufficient public hearings. He pointed out that the Reapportionment Board put communities in completely different districts. He asserted that the "fast track" approach taken by the Administration put communities in a situation of having to protect themselves, whether they had 4 the resources or not. He felt that had public input been registered the lawsuits may not have been initiated. Mr. Slotnick stated that the State of Alaska will seek a revision on the award of interest to make clear that fees accrued after June 25, 1992, do not incur interest before June 25, 1992. Co-Chair MacLean noted that the plaintiffs will receive substantial interest on their awards. Co-Chair Larson noted that the motion to Adopt AMENDMENT NO. 2 was still pending. Representative Martin OBJECTED to AMENDMENT NO. 2. A roll call vote was taken on the motion. IN FAVOR: Brown, Grussendorf, Hoffman, Navarre OPPOSED: Foster, Hanley, Martin, Parnell, Therriault, MacLean, Larson The MOTION FAILED (4-7). Co-Chair MacLean MOVED to adopt HB 94 as AMENDED. Representative Navarre OBJECTED. A roll call vote was taken on the motion. IN FAVOR: Foster, Grussendorf, Hanley, Hoffman, Martin, Parnell, Therriault, MacLean, Larson OPPOSED: Brown, Navarre The MOTION PASSED (9-2). CSHB 94 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation.