HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE March 6, 1997 8:20 a.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Jeannette James, Chair Representative Ethan Berkowitz Representative Kim Elton Representative Mark Hodgins Representative Ivan Ivan Representative Al Vezey MEMBERS ABSENT Representative Fred Dyson COMMITTEE CALENDAR CONFIRMATION HEARINGS: Human Rights Commission Martha L. Gore Kathy Wisthoff The Reverend Richard K. Heacock, Jr. - CONFIRMATIONS ADVANCED Personnel Board  Katie T. Hurley - CONFIRMATION ADVANCED Alaska Public Offices Commission Joyce Michaelson - CONFIRMATION ADVANCED *HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 16 Relating to a federal balanced budget amendment. - MOVED HJR 16 OUT OF COMMITTEE *HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 2 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to repeal of regulations by the legislature. - MOVED HJR 2 OUT OF COMMITTEE *HOUSE BILL NO. 11 "An Act relating to driver's licensing; and providing for an effective date." - MOVED HB 11 OUT OF COMMITTEE HOUSE BILL NO. 81 "An Act relating to the members of the board and staff of the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation." - SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD (* First public hearing) PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: HJR 16 SHORT TITLE: SUPPORT FEDERAL BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) VEZEY, Ryan JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 01/27/97 150 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 01/27/97 150 (H) STATE AFFAIRS 03/06/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 BILL: HJR 2 SHORT TITLE: REPEAL OF REGULATIONS BY LEGISLATURE SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) ROKEBERG, JAMES JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 01/13/97 22 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/3/97 01/13/97 22 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 01/13/97 22 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY, FINANCE 03/06/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 BILL: HB 11 SHORT TITLE: DRIVERS LICENSE REQUIREMENTS FOR MINORS SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) GREEN JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 01/13/97 30 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/3/97 01/13/97 30 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 01/13/97 30 (H) TRANSPORTATION, STATE AFFAIRS 02/05/97 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17 02/05/97 (H) MINUTE(TRA) 02/07/97 260 (H) TRA RPT 5DP 1NR 1AM 02/07/97 260 (H) DP: COWDERY, SANDERS, KOOKESH 02/07/97 260 (H) HUDSON, WILLIAMS 02/07/97 260 (H) NR: MASEK 02/07/97 260 (H) AM: ELTON 02/07/97 260 (H) FISCAL NOTE (DPS) 02/07/97 260 (H) REFERRED TO STATE AFFAIRS 03/06/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 WITNESS REGISTER MARTHA L. GORE, Appointee Human Rights Commission 6152 East 12th Avenue, Number 2 Anchorage, Alaska 99504 Telephone: (907) 338-3632 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on her confirmation to the Human Rights Commission. KATHY WISTHOFF, Appointee Human Rights Commission 18739 Villages Scenic Parkway Anchorage, Alaska 99516 Telephone: (907) 345-0831 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on her confirmation to the Human Rights Commission. THE REVEREND RICHARD K. HEACOCK, JR., Appointee Human Rights Commission 3012 Riverside Drive Fairbanks, Alaska 99709 Telephone: (907) 474-0700 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on his confirmation to the Human Rights Commission. KATIE T. HURLEY, Appointee Personnel Board P.O. Box 870157 Wasilla, Alaska 99687 Telephone: (907) 376-5736 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on her confirmation to the Personnel Board. JOYCE MICHAELSON, Appointee P.O. Box 245014 Anchorage, Alaska 99524 Telephone: (907) 338-0469 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on her confirmation to the Alaska Public Offices Commission. REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG Alaska State Legislature State Capitol, Room 24 Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182 Telephone: (907) 465-4968 POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HJR 2. JEFFREY A. LOGAN, Legislative Assistant to Representative Joe Green State Capitol, Room 118 Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182 Telephone: (907) 465-4931 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 11. JUANITA HENSLEY, Chief Driver Services Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Public Safety P.O. Box 20020 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0020 Telephone: (907) 465-4361 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 11. JOSH CULBERTSON 1175 Snowhill Wasilla, Alaska 99654 Telephone: (907) 376-3059 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 11. MARTHA MOORE, Research Analyst Community Health and Emergency Medical Services Division of Public Health Department of Health and Social Services P.O. Box 110616 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0616 Telephone: (907) 465-8631 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 11. ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 97-22, SIDE A Number 0001 The House State Affairs Standing Committee was called to order by Chair Jeannette James at 8:20 a.m. Members present at the call to order were Representatives James, Elton, Ivan, Vezey and Hodgins. Members absent were Berkowitz and Dyson. Number 0037 CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES announced for the record that Representative Fred Dyson was excused from today's meeting due to personal reasons. Number 0059 CHAIR JAMES announced for the record the arrival of Representative Ethan Berkowitz. CHAIR JAMES explained that the resumes of the appointees were included in the package of materials for the committee members. The hearing today was an opportunity for the appointees to make a statement and for the committee members to ask questions. The motion today was a recommendation to move the confirmation forward to a joint session for consideration. The motion did not reflect any intent to vote for or against an individual's confirmation. The minutes were available for those members that could not be here today and/or a member could contact the individual directly. She reiterated the House State Affairs Standing Committee did not recommend, deny, or suggest to deny any individual's confirmation. CONFIRMATION HEARING: MARTHA L. GORE, HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION The first order of business to come before the House State Affairs Standing Committee was the confirmation hearing of Martha L. Gore to the Human Rights Commission. CHAIR JAMES asked Ms. Gore to explain to the committee members why she was interested in serving on the Human Rights Commission. Number 0255 MARTHA L. GORE, Appointee, Human Rights Commission, explained her interest stemmed back many years. She had always been involved in the community and in human rights. Therefore, when she was approached and asked to submit her resume for the Human Rights Commission, she said, "Well, somebody has to do it, and it's better that somebody that cares does it." She felt she was fulfilling her obligations as a citizen. It was important to be a part of the community that one lives in and to be a part of the state that one lives in. Therefore, by being on the Human Rights Commission she was really just doing what she was suppose to do as a citizen; trying to protect other citizens. Number 0336 REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY asked Ms. Gore what did the Human Rights Commission do, in her opinion? Number 0352 MS. GORE replied it was an avenue available to all citizens, because not everyone could hire a lawyer, if they felt that they had been discriminated against. The commission was one place that they could go to when they had been discriminated against or even felt that they had been discriminated against; it was a place to go for relief. It provided an opportunity for them to be heard and for their case to be looked at to see if they had been discriminated against. If there was reason to believe that they had been discriminated against then they could go forward from there. She reiterated, the commission protected the public which was in the best interest of everybody; not just the public with money. Number 0420 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated that Ms. Gore saw the commission as a legal service organization. Number 0427 MS. GORE replied it was quasi-judicial. It was the first legal step that was available to everybody. She did not believe that everybody could hire a lawyer which was why it was necessary to have the Human Rights Commission. Number 0448 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Ms. Gore to summarize the grounds of a complaint or hearing with the Human Rights Commission, or in other words, discrimination on the basis of what? Number 0469 MS. GORE cited sex and religion as examples. There were more cases that dealt with discrimination based on race or sex than any other. She also cited marital status, national origin and color as examples. Number 0497 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Ms. Gore to explain the grounds for discrimination and what the rights were for marital status. Number 0507 MS. GORE replied some believed married individuals with children would not be good employees because of possible baby sitting problems, for example. In addition, unmarried individuals could be perceived as unstable while a married individual could be perceived as more reliable or as a more upstanding citizen. Number 0601 REPRESENTATIVE MARK HODGINS commented that the state was looking at difficult times in regards to funding for state government. As an appointee, she probably had some good ideas on how to help the Human Rights Commission move forward with less resources. He asked Ms. Gore if she had any ideas on how to make the Human Rights Commission easier, more simple or better? What were her plans for her new position? Number 0642 MS. GORE replied that was one of the things that the commission was looking at right now. She did not see how the commission could function with less money. The commission was understaffed with new cases coming in and over 300 unassigned cases - cases that were not assigned to an investigator. The only way the commission could prevent this from getting bigger and bigger was to have more staff, and in order to have more staff, the commission needed more money. "I don't see a way that this organization can effectively operate with less money." Each investigator was assigned 60 cases and with over 300 cases unassigned, less money was not an option. Number 0718 REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ asked Ms. Gore if it was fair to say that many people who used the Human Rights Commission did so to resolve disputes there instead of in the courts? Number 0729 MS. GORE replied, "I would say so." Occasionally, some used the Human Rights Commission to establish the fact that they had a case to go to court. Others, had no other avenue; the commission was their only hope for justice. Number 0764 MS. GORE reiterated that the commission did need help. It was very worthwhile and necessary to protect the people. And, the only way to do that was to give the staff what they needed to do their jobs. CHAIR JAMES called on the committee members for a motion. Number 0797 REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON moved that the appointment of Martha L. Gore to the Human Rights Commission move forward to a joint session for consideration. There was no objection. CONFIRMATION HEARING: KATHY WISTHOFF, HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs Standing Committee was the confirmation hearing of Kathy Wisthoff to the Human Rights Commission. CHAIR JAMES asked Ms. Wisthoff to explain to the committee members why she was interested in serving on the Human Rights Commission. Number 0927 KATHY WISTHOFF, Appointee, Human Rights Commission, explained that she had only recently been appointed to the commission, so she just started reading the briefing booklets provided on what the commission did. She was very interested in the area of human rights and believed that all of the citizens should have a level playing field, so to speak, and that people should not have to face discrimination in areas of employment or financing, for example. And, if a person felt that he or she had been discriminated against in the areas of a protected class - sex, race, color, national origin, or religion-then he or she had the right to bring a complaint forward. The mission of the commission was to investigate the complaints and to determine if there was substantial evidence to proceed. "I think that's a very important function of the state to do that. Just, so that people have the opportunity to have a fair life without discrimination." Number 1001 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated that Ms. Wisthoff said the people had a right to bring a complaint before the commission. He asked Ms. Wisthoff is she was familiar with the work of the commission and its work load? Number 1020 MS. WISTHOFF replied, "Yes." Number 1025 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Ms. Wisthoff, in her opinion, how many of the cases brought to the commission were heard in a reasonable length of time? Number 1041 MS. WISTHOFF replied she did not have that specific information. There were hundreds of cases that had not even been assigned yet because of low staffing. And, hundreds of cases were also resolved every year. She did not know the percentage of cases that had merit and went forward or were dismissed, however. Number 1071 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated there was not a correct answer. He was just asking her opinion on how the process worked. He wondered if most of the cases were being heard in a reasonable amount of time or not. Number 1082 MS. WISTHOFF replied, "No." There were not enough investigators because of budget constraints so it was taking too long for most cases to be heard. Number 1098 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Ms. Wisthoff if she had any suggestions and/or options that the legislature could pursue to help reduce the back log of cases? Number 1111 MS. WISTHOFF replied there were bills currently before both the House and the Senate that would help save money by allowing the commission to hold a hearing in Anchorage rather than at the site of the discrimination - HB 155 and SB 103. It would save somewhere in the neighborhood of $14,000 in travel expenses for one year. MS. WISTHOFF further explained that a temporary increment in the budget would be helpful to allow for extra investigators to clear the back log so that the commission could get caught up with the cases. Number 1166 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Ms. Wisthoff how the majority of the cases were settled? Did they go to court, for example? Number 1178 MS. WISTHOFF replied that the majority of the cases were settled without having to go to court. In fact, many were settled before there was even a hearing. As-soon-as, a respondent was informed that there was discrimination, the case was usually settled because the respondent either agreed that there was discrimination or that he did not want to pursue it further and stopped the discriminatory practice. Number 1221 CHAIR JAMES commented that she was extremely concerned about human rights. "I am totally opposed to any discrimination against any person for any reason." A few of the reasons had been selected, yet, it did not cover the complete area of discrimination. She understood, however, it was necessary to define something before it could be prohibited. She was also concerned about reverse discrimination. As a member of the commission, Ms. Wisthoff would have to sort the perceived cases of discrimination and the intentional cases of discrimination. Discrimination, she explained, much of the time, was in the eye of the beholder which was where the concern laid. She asked Ms. Wisthoff to explain her position on this issue. Number 1320 MS. WISTHOFF agreed with Chair James that there should not be any discrimination regardless of any area. She also believed that the human right's laws were ever changing. The current law had been changed to add reasons for discrimination as they became noticeable to the public. She was also concerned about reverse discrimination. In fact, the commission had heard cases on reverse discrimination. Number 1366 CHAIR JAMES commented, as an example, somebody could discriminate against a person because of the way he or she was dressed. And, if that person met one of the lists of people that were discriminated against then he or she had a case. Number 1401 MS. WISTHOFF replied, "You mean because they're in a protect class, so to speak." Number 1438 CHAIR JAMES replied, "That's what I'm saying. That's right." And, if they were not in a protected class, then people could discriminate against a person for that same reason but there would not be a case. Number 1401 MS. WISTHOFF agreed that was a problem. The other role of the commission was one of education. The commission spoke to groups and to businesses to educate them on what was okay and what was not okay in the work force, for example. She was also concerned about the people that were not protected. She did not have an answer, however. Number 1438 CHAIR JAMES replied she was happy that Ms. Wisthoff recognized it as a broader issue than just human rights. CHAIR JAMES called on the committee members for a motion. Number 1457 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ moved that the appointment of Kathy Wisthoff to the Human Rights Commission move forward to a joint session for consideration. There was no objection. CONFIRMATION HEARING: THE REVEREND RICHARD K. HEACOCK, JR., HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs Standing Committee was the confirmation hearing of The Reverend Richard K. Heacock, Jr. to the Human Rights Commission. CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Heacock to explain to the committee members why he was interested in serving on the Human Rights Commission. Number 1488 THE REVEREND RICHARD K. HEACOCK, JR., Appointee, Human Rights Commission, explained the Governor requested that he submit his resume. After thinking about it, and because he was retired, he did not have an excuse for not doing this kind of work. In addition, part of the reason for deciding to submit his resume was his background in human rights. His background was basically theological, philosophical and academical. For five years he was involved in international affairs and education at the United Nations where he learned about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Subsequent to the declaration economical, social, cultural, civil, and political covenants were added forming the International Bill of Human Rights. He served at the United Nations as a non-governmental organizational representative for the United Methodist Church. "So, I thought, well, with this kind of background maybe that would be useful to the commission so I submitted my resume to see how it went." Number 1576 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked to call the appointee "Mr." Heacock in this context. MR. HEACOCK, JR. replied he could call him Richard or Dick or.... REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY explained he was sensitive to the term "Reverend". He believed it was used inappropriately nine times out of ten. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated that Mr. Heacock talked about his involvement in human rights from a theological perspective. "What we deal with is a legal perspective. We have law and the law and morality are not the same thing." He asked Mr. Heacock if he was familiar with the laws regarding human rights and the statute that authorized the commission? Number 1621 MR. HEACOCK, JR. replied that the commissioners reviewed the statute yesterday. He called in an excellent statute. "I think most of us Americans do believe that fundamental human rights are inalienable including the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The word "inalienable" had a theological connotation. If human rights were inalienable that meant that no king, governor, or legislative body, for example, had the right to take away those rights from any human being. There was a difference of opinion, however, as to the origin of the inalienable fact about human rights. Some said there was a theological origin because we were created by a "creator", therefore, the rights could not be taken away by a human source. Others said because we were humans we had human rights. He did not argue with either position. He believed that the laws had developed in part through a theological and philosophical way of thinking about humans. Number 1697 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY explained the correct usage of the title "Reverend" was: The Reverend, followed by the full name of the person. It was not used like the title, "Mr." REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY further commented that the underlying issue when dealing with the work of the Human Rights Commission was property; an issue of depriving one party or another of property. The legal system determined who had the right to the property. He asked Mr. Heacock how he would balance the legal property rights versus the legal human rights versus the theological human rights? Number 1745 MR. HEACOCK, JR. replied that would be a difficult question to answer in theory. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY responded that was what Mr. Heacock would face everyday. MR. HEACOCK, JR. further replied it would be easier to deal with a specific example. Number 1759 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY cited a routine example was a person terminated from his or her job. The issues involved were: the employer's rights and obligations to utilize resources in an effective manner to produce a profit to stay in business; and the citizen's right to not be discriminated against under the legal rights to retain his or her job. He called it a two-edge sword where both parties had rights. Number 1791 MR. HEACOCK, JR. replied that was the hard work of the commission - to determine the validity of a case. A person could certainly be terminated on grounds that were appropriate or on grounds that violated the statute. Number 1812 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS commented that Mr. Billy Still was included as a reference on his resume. He wondered how he was doing. He was aware of his heart problems. Number 1827 MR. HEACOCK, JR. replied he was looking pretty good. REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS replied, "Good. He's a good man." Number 1835 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Mr. Heacock to expand on what he did with the United Nations and international human rights. Number 1848 MR. HEACOCK, JR. replied his job was Director of a United Nations Seminar program that was sponsored by the women's division of the United Methodist Church and the General Board of Church and Society. The program dealt with groups that came from all over the United States to educate them about the United Nations staff and the permanent missions to the United Nations. A guided tour was included of the United Nations as well. Number 1903 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated that he almost felt like he knew Mr. Heacock because he had subscribed to Alaska Impact for a couple of years now for the low price of $20. He also disputed the testimony of Mr. Heacock in regards to his retirement because of his extensive involvement in public affairs. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON further stated that the role of the commission was one of education and dispute-resolution. It was important to educate to keep things from progressing to the level of the commission. The dispute-resolution role worked with people to get beyond the problems to determine if there had been a violation of the statute. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON further stated that the real problem the Human Rights Commission had was: the delay in justice, the delay in the dispute-resolution, and the delay in the education functions of the commission. He mentioned his work in the Ombudsman Office, of which, he would refer people to the commission and inform them that it could take a couple of years before there would be any resolution. This did not serve Alaskans well. He reiterated the first-half of the job was the good people that served on the board and the second-half of the job was the resources that was needed to get things done. Number 2003 CHAIR JAMES stated she also received Alaska Impact, but more than half of the time she disagreed with the statements. She and Mr. Heacock agreed on a lot of things and disagreed on others. CHAIR JAMES further stated that she was concerned about the unintended consequences of discrimination. She believed that people should be treated fairly and with respect. CHAIR JAMES further commented on the issue of human rights infractions in China and the economic exchange. She did not have a position on the issue, but she did recognized that it was an issue that needed to be addressed. She asked Mr. Heacock if he would share his ideas on the issue because of his background in international human rights with the committee members. Number 2083 MR. HEACOCK, JR. replied the United States should continue its role to encourage other states to live up to the standards that were set in the International Bill for Human Rights. It was a complex question, and whether or not the influence of the United States was greater without trade relations or with trade relations, was a question he was not competent to answer. Number 2114 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS moved that the appointment of The Reverend Richard K. Heacock, Jr. to the Human Rights Commission move forward to a joint session for consideration. There was no objection. CONFIRMATION HEARING: KATIE T. HURLEY, PERSONNEL BOARD The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs Standing Committee was the confirmation hearing of Katie T. Hurley to the Personnel Board. CHAIR JAMES asked Ms. Hurley to explain to the committee members why she was interested in serving on the Personnel Board. Number 2160 KATIE T. HURLEY, Appointee, Personnel Board, explained she was asked to serve on the board by the Governor. She had to think about it because she had a commitment to a job that she was elected to with the Matanuska Telephone Board. She also hesitated because she was concerned about "filling the shoes" of the person she would be replacing. Upon reflection, she decided she could not refuse her Governor and she did have previous board experience-seven years on the State Board of Education and five years on the Human Rights Commission. She also had years of experience in the executive and legislative branches of government and the private sector. She also felt she could give the time to do the job. Number 2233 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Ms. Hurley how she would make the Personnel Board better? Number 2245 MS. HURLEY replied, "I don't know that I can make it better." She was there to approve or disapprove amendments to the Personnel Rules and to hear appeals by employees. The Personnel Board was excellent, and she was appointed to work with the other two members. "I have been working with them, and we work well together." Number 2267 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Ms. Hurley what were the duties of the Personnel Board? Number 2276 MS. HURLEY replied the power in the law said that the board approved or disapproved amendments to the Personnel Rules in accordance with state law; heard and determined appeals by employees in the classified service; and established rules of procedure. MS. HURLEY further stated that she also served on the Public Employees Retirement Board which took additional time because it met separately from the Personnel Board. Number 2312 MS. HURLEY further stated that the Personnel Board could serve the public better if there was an increase in its appropriation. The members did not get a per diem, and she was not suggesting that they should, but there should be adequate staffing to handle the cases. Number 2356 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON moved that the appointment of the Katie T. Hurley to the Personnel Board move forward to a joint session for consideration. There was no objection. CHAIR JAMES called for a brief at ease at 9:03 a.m. CHAIR JAMES called the House State Affairs Standing Committee meeting back to order at 9:08 a.m. CONFIRMATION HEARING: JOYCE MICHAELSON, ALASKA PUBLIC OFFICES COMMISSION The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs Standing Committee was the confirmation hearing of Ms. Joyce Michaelson to the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC). CHAIR JAMES asked Ms. Michaelson to explain to the committee members why she was interested in serving on the Alaska Public Offices Commission. Number 2438 JOYCE MICHAELSON, Appointee, Alaska Public Offices Commission, explained she was sought for the position. Upon careful consideration, she decided it was worthwhile because a person had not only the right but the duty and responsibility to be involved in voting and electing good candidates to office. It was important to have those that were involved and informed and it was also important to have those that were watching for activities that were not good. Therefore, she decided it probably would not take any more of her time to sit on the commission as it would to be involved in a campaign, for example. TAPE 97-22, SIDE B Number 0005 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Ms. Michaelson to explain her background in campaigns and campaign finances. Number 0012 MS. MICHAELSON explained that she had worked as a volunteer on several campaigns on all levels of government-state and municipal. She had been campaign treasurer, had served on steering committees; had been an active participant in the precinct to get "out the vote", and to register people to vote; had worked as an election judge; had been a district and a state delegate to conventions; and had been a community activist. Number 0052 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Ms. Michaelson if she was familiar with the 1974 Supreme Court ruling in Buckley v. Valeo? MS. MICHAELSON replied she had heard of it but she could not recall it right off the bat. Number 0068 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied that was okay. It was just a question. He asked Ms. Michaelson to comment on the First Amendment of the United States and Alaska Constitution and the laws limiting campaign contributions. MS. MICHAELSON asked if Representative Vezey was talking about the new law that was passed last year based on the initiative? Number 0084 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied she could talk about any law that she wanted. The law that was passed last year was the one that she would be dealing with. Number 0088 MS. MICHAELSON stated it would be an interesting few years because it was going to be harder for those that had been involved in campaigns in the past than the new people because it was such a radical change. The Anchorage Municipal election coming up soon was going to be the first test case. The commission should take a role of informing people to help them stay on the right track. Number 0145 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Ms. Michaelson to comment on the interface of the First Amendment and the campaign finance laws. Number 0160 MS. MICHAELSON asked Representative Vezey if he was talking about the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the right of free speech? REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied, "Correct." He was also talking about the Alaska State Constitution. MS. MICHAELSON replied there were limits to anything - free speech, or the right to bear arms, for example. Somebody who violated those rights, to the point of infringing on everybody else's rights, lost their initial right. "I don't have the right to libel you, nor you me. But, yet, we still have the right to express our opinions." She believed she had certain rights and certain privileges. There were limitations on having the excessive right to speak versus stopping anybody else from speaking. A reasonable, common sense approach was needed for everything. That was what the legislators did on a daily basis while looking at the laws. Number 0234 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated that the responsibilities for what one said did not apply to people who were in public offices. But, one could lie to a person seeking a public office, and one could libel a person seeking a public office or a person who was already in public office, and there was no recourse against that. Number 0253 MS. MICHAELSON replied, "Well, unfortunately, that's true." REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated it was not true. MS. MICHAELSON stated it should not be true without a defense. But, unfortunately that was what happened. Number 0261 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Ms. Michaelson if she was familiar with the new campaign finance disclosure law? MS. MICHAELSON replied, "Yes." She was just as informed as most people were. Number 0273 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Ms. Michaelson to comment on how it would stand up to constitutional review. MS. MICHAELSON replied it had problems. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Ms. Michaelson, assuming she was confirmed to the commission, how she would deal with the problem areas? Number 0283 MS. MICHAELSON replied that the commission could only enforce the law as it was. She thought some of the things in the law were ambiguous and were left to interpretation. She expected some changes for clarification. Number 0334 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS commented that the latest campaign law favored incumbents. He wanted to know how active Ms. Michaelson would be on the board to make the law more fair for the challengers. Number 0362 MS. MICHAELSON replied she was one of five commissioners. Therefore, any proposal would have to go along with the others. She would be willing to propose recommendations, if she was asked to by the legislature, along with the rest of the commissioners. The commissioners did not make the law but rather enforced it. The commissioners would not be able to do anything other than what the law said, but she reiterated she would be willing to make recommendations. Number 0405 CHAIR JAMES commented that Ms. Michaelson appeared not to be a person that did not like government. There were a number of people out there that did not like government for a variety of reasons. Many of the reasons, she explained, were of perception rather than reality. She asked Ms. Michaelson to address the issue of perception versus reality and how should the government respond to the issue? She believed that the Alaska Public Offices Commission had some responsibility in that issue as well. Number 0438 MS. MICHAELSON replied that was one of the reasons she decided to accept the position. There were people in government because they had an axe to grind and they really did not understand reality. She had been involved with campaigns and what appeared to the public was not always the case. Similarly, the legislature did not like some of the provisions of the new campaign law when debated last year, but it could not change it at the time. In addition, it was a point of education. It was important for the public to air their viewpoints, and when they were wrong it needed to be pointed out to them. The public needed to hear both sides of a situation. That was why the commission needed to take on the role of educator - to inform both sides. Number 0521 CHAIR JAMES stated that she was right on target regarding the passage of the campaign finance law. It was passed in a defensive mode rather than an offensive mode. The legislature had the opportunity to tweak the law if it wished to this year. She was not suggesting massive changes. She asked Ms. Michaelson, as a member of the commission, if she would be aggressive in making suggestions to the legislature in this area? Number 0588 MS. MICHAELSON replied, "Actually, I think I already have been aggressive in this area." The commission met last week, of which, the new law was discussed. She stated at the meeting that she expected the legislature to fine tune the law. In addition, the leaders of the parties also needed to take a role by helping the legislators. This was a nationwide issue so it took everybody's input. Number 0652 CHAIR JAMES agreed that this was a nationwide issue. Number 0661 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY explained that the APOC was a quasi-judicial commission and it would be asked, at times, to serve as a tribunal to hear facts. He asked Ms. Michaelson if she would need to adjust anything in her personal life to fulfill these obligations? Number 0694 MS. MICHAELSON replied she could not take an active role in any campaign as she had in the past. She did not have a political job, but she did help make recommendations for regulations. She also noticed that ever since she was asked to sit on the commission she had wanted to write a letter to the legislators or to the editor, for example, contrary to her usual tendency to make a phone call. Number 0769 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Ms. Michaelson if she was active or a member of any entity that would have a reason to participate in a campaign or a ballot issue? Number 0778 MS. MICHAELSON replied, "No." She was involved in the Mortgage Bankers Association and the Professional Mortgage Women Association, but they were not involved politically. If they did get involved she would stay out of it. Number 0811 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS moved that the appointment of Joyce Michaelson to the Alaska Public Offices Commission move forward to a joint session for consideration. There was no objection. HJR 16 - SUPPORT FEDERAL BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs Standing Committee was HJR 16, Relating to a federal balanced budget amendment. CHAIR JAMES called on Representative Al Vezey, sponsor of HJR 16, to present the resolution. Number 0868 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated the resolution was simple. The purpose was to urge Congress to pass a balanced budget resolution and for the states to ratify such a resolution. It also indirectly urged the Alaskan Congressional Delegation to support the resolution. Number 0889 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that Congress had already considered this issue. "This resolution is a little bit like shutting the barn door after the horses fled." Number 0895 CHAIR JAMES replied it was not over until it was over. It was like the appeals process in the courts. It was now in the U.S. House of Representatives pending a vote then it would return to the U.S. Senate. Therefore, the resolution was appropriate. Number 0908 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated that the resolution also showed the support of the legislature to the Alaskan Congressional Delegation of their vote on a tough issue. He also believed that it would come up for a vote again. Number 0920 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS moved that HJR 16 move from the committee with the attached fiscal note(s) and individual recommendations. Number 0925 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected. The state was sticking its nose into federal business when there was a lot of state business to attend to. In addition, there was no testimony or evidence that this resolution was in the best interest for the state of Alaska. He also had reservations about the Federal Balanced Budget Act and its ability to impact the state. There were many times when federal funding was a quick and an easy way to correct the problems of the economy which the act interfered. Number 0990 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS stated that as long as the state of Alaska received one cent from the federal government, it had an interest in how the federal government operated. Therefore, it was very, very appropriate for the resolution to move forward. Number 1009 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated that the resolution was very much in the best interest of the state of Alaska or he would not have introduced it. "I don't think we are capable of imagining the opportunities that this would create in Alaska, if the federal budget was to be balanced." Most of the housing and development needs in the state were met through financing and financing was affected by the interest rates. A balanced budget would have a profound affect on the interest rates. Number 1045 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON explained that Senator Ted Stevens said a hasty action such as this could put states like Alaska at risk. Because, for every dollar that Alaska sent to the federal government it received several dollars back which might not happen under a balanced budget. Furthermore, this issue had been subject to a great deal of debate in Congress which created unresolved questions. He was distressed at how rapidly the resolution was moving forward. For example, the committee members had not heard testimony on how this would affect the social security system or the ability to conduct a war on several fronts. "I think that this right now with lack of debate probably speaks more to politics than it does to policy." Number 1108 CHAIR JAMES stated that she would be happier if the state did not depend as much on federal funds because it dictated what and how the state did things. CHAIR JAMES called for a roll call vote. Representatives James, Hodgins, Ivan and Vezey voted in favor of the motion. Representatives Berkowitz and Elton voted against the motion. House Joint Resolution 16 was so moved from the House State Affairs Standing Committee. HJR 2 - REPEAL OF REGULATIONS BY LEGISLATURE The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs Standing Committee was HJR 2, Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to repeal of regulations by the legislature. CHAIR JAMES called on Representative Norman Rokeberg, sponsor of HJR 2, to present the resolution. Number 1157 REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG, Alaska State Legislature, pointed out to the committee members that Chair James was a co-sponsor of the resolution. This issue had been before the body before; it was passed by the Nineteen Alaska State Legislature. The proposed amendment would allow the legislature to write the constitutional equilibrium within the balance of the separation of powers. It was important that the resolution was adopted to present it to the voters for their approval. The resolution merely stated that the legislature could by a joint resolution repeal a regulation adopted by the state. "It speaks to the enormous amount of lawmaking that's going on by the Administration." And, in my opinion, it was the purview and the constitutional responsibility of the legislature to make laws and to set policies in the state. The letter in opposition from the Department of Law, dated February 28, 1997, made the case for the resolution. He cited the court case of State of Alaska v. Live Volunteers whereby it was decided that the legislature did not have the right to annul regulations by a concurrent resolution in both houses. The decision generated the efforts to amend the constitution. The votes failed because of a lack of public support and the failure to educate the public properly regarding the roles of the legislature and the executive branch. The Alaska State Government was a very strong executive government as a result of the constitutional model developments of the 1940's and 1950's in the United States. He reiterated, the resolution was intended to save money by providing that the Administration followed the intent of the legislature. There were a number of letters of support included in the bill package. He continued to further obtain examples of support to enable the movement of the bill forward. Number 1358 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Representative Rokeberg to explain how the resolution would work if it was adopted? Number 1372 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG explained many times the legislature passed a bill that required the adoption of regulations by the Administration to implement the law. The Administration promulgated the regulations under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The APA required only one public hearing, but many times there was more than one hearing because of public comments. The legislature continued to look at that process and this resolution was one element in providing a balance. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG further explained that many times the Administration missed the intent of the legislature when adopting regulations. He cited the Airport Leasing Bill that passed last year. The regulations did not meet the intent of the legislation. He testified at public hearing on the regulations himself. Progress had been made, but the last draft had yet to be seen. This was only one example of many. The last election was held in 1986, of which, 9,500 regulations had been drafted and promulgated since that time. The attorney general said it was the constitutional right of the Governor to have the ability to veto. The Governor would have total control over anything that the legislature did with his veto power if the legislature did not have the super majority to override the veto. "The Governor in essence could write law outside the body of this legislature and with the veto power control the law making process of the state, in essence." That was the balance and equilibrium that he was talking about. The legislature, as the proper law making body, needed to be able to override by nullification improper and unintended regulations. Number 1584 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY commented that he had a bill in the Nineteenth Alaska State Legislature relating to this issue. In addition, he believed philosophically that the legislature would not succeed in getting the public to support the resolution. "For the simple reason that the public would perceive this as the legislature trying to give itself more power and the public does not wish to give any form of government more power." He did intend to support Representative Rokeberg 100 percent, however. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY further explained that he philosophically believed in repealing the right that the legislature gave to the Governor to make laws. In addition, the courts upset the balance because it said that the legislature could delegate its power to make laws, but it could not reserve to itself the right to veto laws. He asked Representative Rokeberg, if the legislature failed in this regard, would he support using the authority of the legislature to take away the authority from the Governor the right to make laws? Number 1656 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied he understood the intent of Representative Vezey. However, his bill was a shot gun approach rather than a rifle approach. He would be amenable to a rifle approach and not a shot gun approach by destroying all regulations. Number 1691 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied, "So, you favor the right of the Governor to make law?" REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied, "No, I do not." Like any legislator he would like to further review the intentions of Representative Vezey's bill. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Representative Rokeberg if he was familiar with his bill that he was talking about? REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied, "No, not specifically." REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY explained that his bill said if the Administration wanted law it would have to present it to the legislature for ratification for his signature. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied, in other words, the ratification of any regulations promulgated. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied the legislature did that by doing away with the regulation process and did it through the statutory process. The regulations became the statutes. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied he would support that. Number 1745 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Representative Rokeberg if he had any dialogue with the Department of Transportation regarding the airfield issue raised earlier? And, how did it pan out? Number 1757 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied he did have dialogue, of which, some of it panned out and some of it did not. That was the issue - a clash of intentions. Many times legislation was remedial in form; it was intended to straighten out regulatory moras by giving statutory guidance to the department. Nevertheless, it was too complex of an issue so some regulations were needed. He was mostly concerned with the end-product, however. Number 1809 CHAIR JAMES explained she spoke this morning on the subject of regulating the regulators. This was a stressful issue. She appreciated Representative Rokeberg for bringing this issue forward. The support of the public was needed to reform the regulations. The issue needed to be attacked on every side. In response to Representative Vezey's concern of doing away with the Administrative Procedure Act, she did not find any legislator that was willing to put extra effort into the statutory construction so that the regulations were not needed. She saw legislators willing to include a caveat that said "the department shall write regulations to implement this chapter", for example, giving away the responsibility. Number 1930 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated, in response to the concern of Representative Vezey and the passage of the resolution, that he wanted to move the resolution through both bodies this year to give the supporters the opportunity to organize. Number 1982 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS moved that HJR 2 move from the committee with the attached fiscal note(s) and individual recommendations. Number 2006 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY objected for the purpose of taking a roll call vote. CHAIR JAMES called for a roll call vote. Representatives James, Hodgins, Ivan and Vezey voted in favor of the motion. Representatives Berkowitz and Elton were not present for the vote. House Joint Resolution 2 was so moved from the House State Affairs Standing Committee. HB 11 - DRIVERS LICENSE REQUIREMENTS FOR MINORS The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs Standing Committee was HB 11, "An Act relating to driver's licensing; and providing for an effective date." CHAIR JAMES called on Mr. Jeffrey A. Logan, staff to Representative Joe Green, sponsor of HB 11. Number 2097 JEFFREY A. LOGAN, Legislative Assistant to Representative Joe Green, explained the language in HB 11 had been introduced in two previous legislatures. "But the fact that it hasn't yet become law doesn't mean it's a dog." It was introduced by Representative Green in the Eighteenth Alaska State Legislature. It was introduced again in the Nineteenth Alaska State Legislature, and made it to the Senate Rules Committee. MR. LOGAN further explained that Representative Green and Juanita Hensley, Department of Public Safety, worked on the language to increase the support. The bill said to young drivers that driving a motor vehicle was a privilege and it should be treated as such. It required that a person with a permit must drive with a person who was at least 22 years old instead of 19 years old. The ages were lowered to garner more support. In addition, the bill required that a permit be obtained before a drivers license. There were also restrictions on when a person could drive during the day. He referred the committee members to page 2, line 22 and read, "1:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m." The bill also said that a person could not get as many points. The bill was supported by Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the Alaska Trucking Association, Inc., individuals who worked with injured or killed young drivers, the U.S. Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Alaskan Congressional Delegation. The letters of support from the Alaskan Congressional Delegation were dated last year. They indicated that they would forward a letter of support for this year as well. There was also back-up material on statistics supporting the institution of this type of program. Number 2445 JUANITA HENSLEY, Chief, Driver Services, Division of Motor Vehicles, Department of Public Safety, explained that the department had supported this bill for the last several years. The states that had implemented a graduated or provisional driver licensing program showed drastic reductions in the number of injuries and fatalities. TAPE 97-23, SIDE A Number 0001 MS. HENSLEY further stated that Alaska was awarded a grant, of which, no money had been expended pending the enactment of the bill. It was a grant to implement this type of a program and to track it for a period of three years to see if it was working. Last year, the bill passed with a vote of 37 to 0 with 3 excused members. It made it to the Senate Rules Committee but was not calendared in the last hours of session. Number 0085 JOSH CULBERTSON was the first person to testify via teleconference in Mat-Su. He agreed with Representative Joe Green. "I think it's a good idea." He was concerned about the mandatory drivers education class and the availability of the classes in the bush, for example. But, if the class was put on the internet there would not be a problem. He was currently a student at Wasilla High School and had taken a drivers education course. "I just think it would be a lot better and a lot safer for people that are out on the roads." Number 0166 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN asked Ms. Hensley if the bill would require a mandatory drivers education class before a license was issued to minors? Number 0185 MS. HENSLEY replied, "No." The bill did not mandate a drivers education class because of the diversity of Alaska; it would be an astronomical fiscal cost to the state. The bill required an individual to obtain an instruction permit and to hold that permit for six months before obtaining a provisional license. The provisional license restricted the time allowed to drive. An individual would be required to hold that license for one year before obtaining a full unrestricted drivers license. The bill allowed for the training that young drivers needed because, unfortunately, Alaskan young drivers tended to learn by trial and error, as opposed to learning over a period of time under restrictions and under parental purview. Number 0311 MARTHA MOORE, Research Analyst, Community Health and Emergency, Medical Services, Division of Public Health, Department of Health and Social Services, explained the department supported HB 11 on the basis that it believed it would help reduce crashes among young teenage drivers. Motor vehicle crashes were the leading cause of death for 16 to 17 year olds in Alaska and were responsible for one-fifth of the injury deaths. From 1991 to 1995, 16 and 17 year old drivers accounted for just under 2 percent of the licensed drivers in Alaska. Yet, they were the drivers involved in almost 4.5 percent of the crashes. The rate of crashes for young drivers was over two times that of adults. The most common factors that put young drivers at risk were: immaturity, inexperience, teenage passengers, unsafe speed, alcohol use, dangerous road conditions, non-use of safety belts, and night driving. The policies that were most effective in reducing crash rates for young drivers were ones that involved a delayed licensure, such as, a higher minimum age for full licensing, an extended period of supervised driving and a night driving curfew. She further stated that in Oregon the state estimated an $11 million savings which far justified the $150,000 cost of implementing the program. Number 0451 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS moved that HB 11 move from the committee with the attached fiscal note(s) and individual recommendations. There was no objection, HB 11 was so moved from the House State Affairs Standing Committee. ADJOURNMENT Number 0491 CHAIR JAMES adjourned the House State Affairs Standing Committee meeting at 10:04 a.m.