ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
April 29, 2004
8:04 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bruce Weyhrauch, Chair
Representative Jim Holm, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S)
Alaska Public Offices Commission
Roger E. Holl - Anchorage
- CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED
HOUSE BILL NO. 461
"An Act relating to enhanced 911 surcharges and to emergency
services dispatch systems of municipalities, certain villages,
and public corporations established by municipalities."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 40
"An Act relating to issuance of a driver's license."
- MOVED CSHB 40(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 327
"An Act relating to the powers and duties of the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities; and repealing a
requirement that public facilities comply with energy standards
adopted by the Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities."
- MOVED CSHB 327(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 523
"An Act relating to qualifications of voters, voter
registration, voter residence, precinct boundary modification,
recognized political parties, voters unaffiliated with political
parties, early voting, absentee voting, ballot counting, voting
by mail, initiative, referendum, recall, and definitions; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 523(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 461
SHORT TITLE: EMERGENCY SERVICES DISPATCH/911 SURCHARGE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) HOLM
02/16/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/16/04 (H) CRA, STA
03/02/04 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
03/02/04 (H) Heard & Held <Subcommittee Assigned>
03/02/04 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
04/27/04 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
04/27/04 (H) Moved CSHB 461(CRA) Out of Committee
04/27/04 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
04/28/04 (H) CRA RPT CS(CRA) NT 1DP 5NR
04/28/04 (H) DP: MORGAN; NR: ANDERSON, KOOKESH,
04/28/04 (H) SAMUELS, WOLF, CISSNA
04/29/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 40
SHORT TITLE: REQUIREMENTS FOR DRIVER'S LICENSE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) LYNN
01/21/03 (H) PREFILE RELEASED (1/10/03)
01/21/03 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/21/03 (H) TRA, STA
04/10/03 (H) TRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 17
04/10/03 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
04/15/03 (H) TRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 17
04/15/03 (H) Heard & Held
04/15/03 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
04/24/03 (H) TRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 17
04/24/03 (H) Moved CSHB 40(TRA) Out of Committee
04/24/03 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
04/25/03 (H) TRA RPT CS(TRA) NT 2DP 3NR
04/25/03 (H) DP: FATE, MASEK; NR: OGG, KOHRING,
04/25/03 (H) HOLM
05/07/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
05/07/03 (H) Heard & Held
05/07/03 (H) MINUTE(STA)
05/14/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
05/14/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
05/15/03 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
05/15/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
01/13/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
01/13/04 (H) Heard & Held
01/13/04 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/29/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 327
SHORT TITLE: POWERS/DUTIES DOTPF
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) HOLM
05/16/03 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/16/03 (H) TRA, STA
02/19/04 (H) TRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 17
02/19/04 (H) Heard & Held
02/19/04 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
02/26/04 (H) TRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 17
02/26/04 (H) Moved CSHB 327(TRA) Out of Committee
02/26/04 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
03/01/04 (H) TRA RPT CS(TRA) NT 4DP
03/01/04 (H) DP: MASEK, OGG, STEPOVICH, HOLM
03/16/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/16/04 (H) Heard & Held
03/16/04 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/26/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/26/04 (H) Heard & Held
03/26/04 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/26/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/26/04 (H) Heard & Held
04/26/04 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/28/04 (H) STA AT 9:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/28/04 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
04/29/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 523
SHORT TITLE: VOTERS/VOTING/POLITICAL PARTIES/ELECTIONS
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
02/26/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/26/04 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
04/08/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/08/04 (H) Heard & Held
04/08/04 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/13/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/13/04 (H) Heard & Held
04/13/04 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/21/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/21/04 (H) Heard & Held
04/21/04 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/22/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/22/04 (H) Heard & Held
04/22/04 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/26/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/26/04 (H) Heard & Held
04/26/04 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/28/04 (H) STA AT 9:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/28/04 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
04/29/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
ROGER E. HOLL, Appointee
to the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As appointee to the Alaska Public Offices
Commission, provided background and answered questions.
GAIL VOIGTLANDER, Chief Assistant Attorney General - Statewide
Section Supervisor
Torts and Workers' Compensation Section
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 461.
LINDA FREED, Manager
City of Kodiak
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 461.
KEVIN RITCHIE
Alaska Municipal League (AML)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 461.
MATTHEW RUDIG, Staff
to Representative Holm
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered a background summary of HB 461, on
behalf of Representative Holm, sponsor.
DAVID GIBBS, Emergency Manager
Kenai Peninsula Borough
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 461.
JIM ROWE, Executive Director
Alaska Telephone Association (ATA)
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 461.
SCOTT WALDEN, Fire Chief
City of Kenai
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 461.
ALLEN STOREY, Central Office
Division of Alaska State Troopers
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 461.
JIM HARPRING
National Emergency Numbering Association (NENA)
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of NENA during the
hearing on HB 461.
ROB HEUN, Deputy Chief
Anchorage Police Department
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 461.
TIM ROGERS, representing
the Alaska Municipal League (AML)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the AML in support
of HB 461.
DON SAVAGE, Police Chief
City of Wasilla
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 461.
STEVEN DeVRIES, Assistant Attorney General
Commercial/Fair Business Section
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered a question during the hearing on
HB 461.
DUANE BANNOCK, Director
Division of Motor Vehicles
Department of Administration
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on behalf of the
division, during the hearing on HB 40.
TODD LARKIN, Staff
to Representative Jim Holm
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Reviewed HB 327 on behalf of Representative
Holm, sponsor.
MYRL THOMPSON, Chairman
Ogan is So Gone
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 523.
JIM SYKES, Election Specialist
Green Party of Alaska
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 523.
LAURA GLAISER, Director
Division of Elections
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided feedback to the committee on
behalf of the division, during the hearing on HB 523.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 04-71, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR BRUCE WEYHRAUCH called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:04 a.m. Representatives Holm,
Seaton, Coghill, Lynn, Gruenberg, and Weyhrauch were present at
the call to order. Representative Berkowitz arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
Number 0088
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced the first order of business, the
confirmation hearing on the appointment of Roger E. Holl to the
Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC).
Number 0113
ROGER E. HOLL, Appointee to the Alaska Public Offices Commission
(APOC), offered background information, noting that he has
practiced law since 1972 and served 10 years on the ethics
committee of the Alaska Bar Association, writing and co-writing
opinions. He stated that he has been active with the University
of Alaska for many years, presently serving as adjunct faculty
for the College of Business and Public Policy, and formerly
serving on the governance committee, as well as on the
institutional restructuring committee during the merger of the
community college system. Mr. Holl also reported that he serves
as a colonel with the 49th Military Police Brigade and as
commander of the 492nd Alaska Coastal Command, which provides
security and training in six port communities of Alaska.
MR. HOLL stated that he does not come to the APOC with an agenda
in mind, but he respects and supports the purpose of the APOC -
that the public has a right to know the source of a candidate's
campaign funds and "to see that groups or persons may or may not
have an influence on the candidate." He indicated that he
thinks the [APOC] should be supportive of those running for
office by carrying out its statutory stated purpose of assisting
candidates and groups to comply, and by developing forms and
manuals. He said he knows the APOC serves as an administrative
body on issues coming before it and investigates complaints, and
he presumes that it also will be acting to give input into state
regulations affecting its commission.
MR. HOLL revealed that he has served as a state hearing officer
in the past. He expressed pleasure in having been appointed,
and he said he thinks he can be impartial. He stated the
importance of respecting all candidates applying, regardless of
political affiliation. In response to a question from Chair
Weyhrauch, he stated that he is a registered Republican,
although he noted that in past years he was a Democrat.
Number 0379
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked Mr. Holl if addressing issues in an
expeditious manner and reaching decisions in the public interest
within a fairly short time frame is something that meets with
his temperament.
MR. HOLL answered yes. He said that because he has his own law
practice, he has flexibility over his schedule; therefore, he
would be able to respond. He indicated that his job as an
attorney is similar, in that he must respond to the needs of
clients in a timely manner. In response to a follow-up question
from Chair Weyhrauch, he said he thinks it's important to be
fair and open in applying the statutory and regulatory standards
to all parties, regardless of political affiliation. He said,
"I think to do so otherwise would be really quite a travesty; I
think that would really be the opposite of the purpose of the
APOC of really ... assisting candidates and providing for an
open and free exchange of information."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH expressed his appreciation of Mr. Holl's
willingness to serve. He remarked that a public service is
sometimes a burden.
Number 0530
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that he has known Mr. Holl for a
long time, both personally and professionally, and he thinks he
is of the highest caliber and recommends him.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH reminded members that signing the reports
regarding appointments to boards and commissions in no way
reflects individual members' approval or disapproval of the
appointees, and that the nominations are merely forwarded to the
full legislature for confirmation or rejection.
Number 0577
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to advance the confirmation of
Roger E. Holl to the joint session of the House and Senate.
There being no objection, the nomination of Roger E. Holl to the
Alaska Public Offices Commission was advanced.
HB 461-EMERGENCY SERVICES DISPATCH/911 SURCHARGE
[Contains discussion of HB 499 and SB 335.]
Number 0600
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the next order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 461, "An Act relating to enhanced 911 surcharges
and to emergency services dispatch systems of municipalities,
certain villages, and public corporations established by
municipalities."
Number 0620
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM moved to adopt the committee substitute (CS)
for HB 461, Version 23-LS1633\Z, Cook, 4/28/04, as a work draft.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH objected.
Number 0718
GAIL VOIGTLANDER, Chief Assistant Attorney General - Statewide
Section Supervisor, Torts and Workers' Compensation Section,
Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law, noted that she
did not have a copy of Version Z; therefore, her comments would
be in regard to CSHB 461(CRA). She directed attention to
Section 7 [which is Section 8 in Version Z]. She stated her
concern is that "there is a difference in the immunity that's
granted." She explained as follows:
The immunity under AS 09.65.070(d)(6), which relates
to local government, covers ... policy issues,
discretionary functions, and operational functions.
The citation in that same section for the state, which
is AS 09.50.250(1), ... points towards (indisc. -
microphone interference) kinds of ... policy decisions
other than operational acts. And so, my concern and
my suggestion to the committee would be to revise it
so that the state is having the same degree of
protection as our local government, under their
statute. It's simply a "wordsmithing" difference
between the state's statute and the immunity statute
for a local government.
MS. VOIGTLANDER suggested language that would "cover both of
those areas and include the same exception that is included in
09.65.070(d)(6)." She offered to send that language by
facsimile. It read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
No civil action for damages may be brought against the
state or an incorporated unit of local government, or
their employees, based on the establishment, funding,
use, operation, or maintenance of an enhanced 911 or
emergency services dispatch system or any toll-free,
default public safety answering point, and all
activities associated with these systems, which is not
based on an intentional act of misconduct or on an act
of gross negligence.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH told Ms. Voigtlander that the committee would
send her a copy of Version Z by facsimile.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked Ms. Voigtlander to look at page 2,
line 16, when she receives the copy of Version Z to see if
that's the same language to which she is referring. Page 2,
[lines 16-20] read as follows:
(6) is based on the exercise or performance
of a duty in connection with an emergency services
dispatch system or an enhanced 911 system, including
providing, maintaining, or operating any toll-free,
statewide default public safety answering point, and
is not based on an intentional act or omission
amounting to misconduct or on an act or omission
amounting to gross negligence.
Number 0788
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that the main difference between
the two sections is that the language on page 2, lines 16-20 of
Version Z only immunizes the state.
Number 1093
LINDA FREED, Manager, City of Kodiak, told the committee that
she does not have a copy of Version Z; therefore, she hopes her
comments are "appropriate and timely." She expressed
appreciation toward the proposal that the levy against the
city's phone bills be used to help pay for the emergency
dispatch system. She said the City of Kodiak currently pays
approximately $5,000 for its dispatch system and receives
approximately $42,000 in revenue annually from telephone bills.
She noted the increase in levy from 50 cents to a dollar would
be applied to a billing statement, rather than a phone line and,
while on the surface it may be seem like an increase in revenue,
the city believes that it will have a greater gap in terms of
revenues versus cost. She said, "If, in fact, it is the ...
committee's perspective that we need to charge per billing
address, we believe - at a minimum to keep us whole - that we
need to see a $1.50 charge per billing address, because on
average, Kodiak residences have two lines going into their
homes." She encouraged the committee to allow local governments
to establish a levy, in consultation with their population, to
pay for the systems that the communities want to put in place.
Ms. Freed also expressed concern with the section in the bill
regarding the routing of 911 calls.
Number 1192
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM informed Ms. Freed that the language has
been changed in Version Z so that the municipality can choose
what to charge; therefore, those who make those charges will be
answerable to those within the municipality. He suggested that
Ms. Freed may want to listen to the ensuing testimony, because
it may answer her questions.
MS. FREED indicated that that change in the language would be
acceptable.
Number 1261
KEVIN RITCHIE, Alaska Municipal League (AML), stated that HB
461, in its simplest form, is democracy in action; it would
allow communities the authority to make the decisions that
effect their own residence. He stated, "We'd like to thank the
sponsor for considering community so strongly and the
relationship that the local people have with their local elected
officials, and we think we'll do it, if not perfectly, at least
very close to exactly right."
Number 1291
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, in response to the concerns of [Ms.
Freed], noted that on page 4, [line 5, of Version Z], the
language would be changed from "[ACCESS LINE]" to "billing
address". He asked Mr. Ritchie if he thinks giving communities
the ability to choose whether to charge by access line or
billing line would solve the problem.
MR. RITCHIE responded that he is not the best person to answer
the question. Notwithstanding that, he said his impression is
that "this is workable."
Number 1359
MATTHEW RUDIG, Staff to Representative Holm, Alaska State
Legislature, offered a background summary of HB 461, on behalf
of Representative Holm, sponsor. He continued as follows:
House Bill 461 gives municipalities local control.
... We are changing statute to give municipalities the
flexibility to charge what they need to recover the
costs of an ... enhanced emergency dispatch system.
Enhanced 911 is a relatively new innovation in rescue
technology .... It can pinpoint the visual location
or phone number of a caller so the [emergency medical
technician (EMT)] unit can know the exact location of
an emergency and be able to act rapidly.
There's little debate to the merits of this service.
Municipalities have established this system all over
the country and it can save lives. The State of
Alaska recognized this a few years ago when it enacted
enhanced 911 legislation in ... 2001.
Currently in statute, a municipality may charge up to
... 75 cents per month, per [caller], for the system.
But by adopting this legislation, we are giving
municipalities the ability to recover the costs of the
operations of enhanced 911. We are allowing the
municipality to make that decision - for their
constituents and for the members - of what they want
to charge and what they can recover.
We have a system in place, a building, and the
technology of enhanced 911; however, we have no
mechanism in statute that will allow municipalities to
recover that cost. Therefore, municipalities are
forced to shift that burden directly to the property
tax payers.
MR. RUDIG emphasized that municipalities would not be able to
charge "willy-nilly." He specified that language that would set
limits was on page 4, lines 15-19, which read as follows:
The municipality may [ONLY] use the enhanced 911
surcharge for the enhanced 911 system and for the
actual labor and equipment used to provide emergency
services dispatch, but not for costs of providing the
medical, police, fire, rescue, or other emergency
service, or for any other purpose.
MR. RUDIG stated that the [municipality] cannot use the funds
from the surcharge in any other manner and must review its costs
annually. He noted that cities and boroughs currently are using
property tax dollars to recover their costs. Essentially, he
remarked, "not all the users of the service are paying for their
service." He stated that [HB 461] is a way for the legislature
to give the municipalities the ability to cover the cost of a
working, operational system. There is no language in the bill
requiring a municipality to impose the surcharge; the
legislature would just be providing the opportunity to do so.
Mr. Rudig urged the committee to consider [HB 461], and he
offered to answer questions.
[Chair Weyhrauch handed the gavel to Vice-Chair Holm.]
Number 1532
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reiterated the question he previously
asked of Mr. Ritchie, regarding access lines versus billing
addresses. He asked what the reason was for the proposed change
to only billing address.
MR. RUDIG noted that that change was made by the House Community
and Regional Affairs Standing Committee. The reason, he
explained, is that some people may have seven different phone
lines in one household and would have to pay seven surcharges if
the charge was made per access line. He pointed to page 4, line
27, and noted that the language had been changed to
"residential", thus, a business could be charged for multiple
lines, but a residence would not be. He said that change was a
compromise between the sponsor and the municipalities.
Number 1699
DAVID GIBBS, Emergency Manager, Kenai Peninsula Borough, stated
that he administers the 911 program for the borough. Currently,
the borough collects $650,000 in surcharge revenue to try to
offset the cost of all the municipalities in the borough of
approximately $2.5 million, and he indicated that there is a
need to increase the surcharge. He said he has nothing further
to add, regarding Version Z, because he had only just received
it.
Number 1679
JIM ROWE, Executive Director, Alaska Telephone Association
(ATA), stated that ATA represents 14 local telephone companies
throughout the state serving rural areas of the state. He noted
that he also was not aware of Version Z, and he observed that
many changes had been made. He said an aspect that people in
rural communities are interested in is that there be a public
safety answering point (PSAP). He clarified that the people
want a real person who answers the phone in response to a 911
call. He informed the committee that that's not the case in the
rural communities. He observed that [Version Z] doesn't address
this issue.
Number 1751
MR. RUDIG directed attention to [Section 8 of CSHB 461(CRA)],
which read as follows:
*Sec.8. AS 42.05 is amended by adding a new section to
read:
Sec. 42.05.295. Routing 911 calls.
Notwithstanding AS 42.05.711, to ensure statewide
access by all residents to 911 wireline services,
traditional or enhanced, for areas where there is no
local or regional public safety answering point, the
state shall provide a toll-free, statewide default
public safety answering point to which each local
exchange telephone company must route all 911 calls
originating from within its customer service base.
MR. RUDIG indicated that the Department of Public Safety
informed him that it could not support the bill, because
[Section 8] would cause an indeterminate fiscal note. It would
also require the department to rush into something for which it
is not prepared. Mr. Rudig indicated that the department would
need to coordinate with local police, EMTs, and volunteer fire
departments on a statewide basis, a process that would take
time. He explained that that section was removed from Version
Z, not because it isn't a good one, but because of the
aforementioned concerns.
MR. ROWE suggested that "the public process here is somewhat
failed," because the issue is one that needs more discussion.
He noted that most of his companies have not had a chance to
look at Version Z. He mentioned HB 499 and SB 335, and he said
there are varying caps of amounts that a municipality would be
allowed to charge - HB 461 having no cap. He said he thinks
that's a situation that would make many of the [telephone]
companies nervous. He observed that many local telephone rates
currently are rising. He stated his main concern is regarding
the failed public process; the public hasn't had a chance to
consider how much the phone bills may be raised. He suggested
that the committee could be hearing other testimony.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH responded, "Before we give a grade, the class is
incomplete."
Number 1885
SCOTT WALDEN, Fire Chief, City of Kenai, stated that the City of
Kenai is "generally in favor of the intent of this bill." He
echoed the previous testifiers remarks that he had only recently
received Version Z. He indicated that the City of Kenai would
like to see the bill moved forward, with additional input
addressing what the cap would be on a surcharge. He said the
City of Kenai agrees with the City of Kodiak that the surcharge
should be a decision made on a local level, because of
differences in expenses. He encouraged the committee to
continue taking testimony and to move forward on the bill before
the end of the session.
Number 1925
ALLEN STOREY, Central Office, Division of Alaska State Troopers,
Department of Public Safety (DPS), confirmed that [DPS] did have
concerns regarding [Section 8 of CSHB 461(CRA)], but that it has
been deleted from Version Z. He indicated that he had planned
to address that issue, and would if necessary. He offered to
stand by to answer questions.
Number 1971
JIM HARPRING, representing the National Emergency Numbering
Association (NENA), told committee members that he has not seen
Version Z and his testimony is directly related to CSHB
461(CRA). He stated his concern is with the concept in [Section
8] and the federal mandate effective date of September 2001. He
said, "With that portion gone, I'd like to reserve my testimony
now."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that Version Z would be made
available, and the bill would not be moved out of committee
today. He suggested that those testifying call the sponsor's
office to work out any issues they may have with the bill.
Notwithstanding that, he encouraged those testifying to offer
their conceptual ideas.
Number 2046
ROB HEUN, Deputy Chief, Anchorage Police Department, indicated
that local control may address problems associated with
surcharges applied to wireless billing statements. He also
mentioned surcharges per billing address and said the issue
might be addressed once he has had an opportunity to look at
Version Z. He reminded the committee that Anchorage was the
first in Alaska to implement wireless 911 phase-two service, the
full costs for which are still being compiled. He stated, "Our
mission was to avoid going to the legislature next year, or each
year afterwards, to adjust the surcharge, and I hope the local
control will help with that." He expressed a concern as
follows:
In jurisdictions across the state, numbers that are
hidden behind a PBX [private branch exchange] pose a
particular problem to first responders. No doubt, the
capitol building itself is a good example. If someone
in one of your offices was to call 911, the emergency
responders would be compelled to search the building
for the specific location of the emergency if no
witness was aware [of] or available to provide the
exact source of the emergency's location within the
building.
MR. HEUN, in conclusion, asked the committee to continue to
address "this public safety issue," because it brings to light
issues that cannot be ignored. He expressed his hope that the
bill be moved forward "in the version that you've compiled."
Number 2115
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM told Mr. Heun that allowing the
municipalities to charge commercial or larger buildings based
upon what they determine is appropriate will allow for more
charges per site. He indicated that would mean better control
over "where those 911 inputs are coming from." He surmised that
it would have to be worked out on a case-by-case basis, because
it would not be desirable to have every room in every building
"be a responder."
MR. HEUN responded, "It would depend on whether it's a PBX or a
Centrex." He said he is looking forward to viewing the latest
version of the bill and possibly discussing the issue.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM said, "It really doesn't address that; it
just addresses the residential portion that makes it so that
there's only one charge for the residence." He stated his
concern is more in regard to compensation for providing the
service and not so much in the difficulty within providing it.
MR. HEUN said he understands Representative Holm's position. He
stated his concern is for public safety.
Number 2183
TIM ROGERS, representing the Alaska Municipal League (AML),
stated his belief that Version Z addresses the concerns of Ms.
Freed regarding the number of surcharges per line, by virtue of
the fact that a surcharge could be determined by the local
governing unit. He stated support for providing 911 service
statewide. He said he thinks the bill will help, because it
would allow for additional revenue source for local government
in setting up a PSAP. However, he recognized that every place
will still not have 911 service available, and he said [AML]
wants to find a resolution to that problem and would work with
the ATA and anyone else to come up with a solution.
MR. ROGERS reminded the committee that, in the past, a good deal
of the revenues to support dispatch centers and acquire new 911
equipment have come from the Safe Communities Revenue program
and the '73 Matching Grant program, both of which were phased
out last year. He urged the committee to pass [HB 461].
Number 2272
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked Mr. Rogers if there generally is a
difference in the expense of the system, per line or address,
between smaller and larger communities.
MR. ROGERS answered that he thinks there's a huge difference.
For example, he noted that the Fairbanks area is currently
operating at a revenue shortfall of $4.2 million, which works
out to approximately $4.63 per line [per month]. The City of
Kodiak operates on a revenue shortfall of $533,000, which works
out to approximately $5.88 per line. The Anchorage shortfall,
he estimated, is somewhere in the $2.00 [per line] range,
currently; however, with the additional cost of the wireless
phase two, he said he thinks that amount will increase
significantly.
Number 2331
DON SAVAGE, Police Chief, City of Wasilla, stated that he has
concerns regarding CSHB 461(CRA) and over the PBX issue raised
by Mr. Heun. He stated that one of the original intents of HB
461 appeared to be a mechanism for cost sharing when there is
more than one PSAP or dispatch center. He observed that that
seemed to have been dropped from the bill, which concerns him.
TAPE 04-71, SIDE B
Number 2368
MR. SAVAGE said cost sharing could be an issue in some of the
large communities that have more than one municipality within
their 911-authority area. He said he looks forward to viewing
Version Z.
Number 2351
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he would like a definition of
"emergency service dispatch system". He mentioned page 2 and
noted that there is no mention of reckless conduct. He remarked
that reckless conduct is frequently mentioned, and he asked,
"Why are we doing what I feel is more likely to be the RCA's
[Regulatory Commission of Alaska] work here?"
STEVEN DeVRIES, Assistant Attorney General, Commercial/Fair
Business Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law,
offered his understanding that the reason the issue is not
directed to the RCA is because the legislature had previously
exempted 911 or E-911-related activities from the jurisdiction
of the commission.
MS. VOIGTLANDER added the following:
The case law in Alaska, which kind of has dumped off
the restatement of tort, equates the term ... or the
standard of gross negligence with the term or standard
of recklessness. So, on previous bills, I believe our
testimony is fairly consistent that ... including both
[terms] is duplicative.
Number 2234
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ characterized [the surcharge] as a tax
on individuals which exempts larger entities - corporations in
particular that pay per billing statement, not per line. He
said it seems unfair that the individual is being
disproportionately afflicted by this tax.
Number 2220
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that HB 461 was heard and held.
HB 40-REQUIREMENTS FOR DRIVER'S LICENSE
Number 2204
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the next order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 40, "An Act relating to issuance of a driver's
license."
[Before the committee was CSHB 40(TRA).]
The committee took an at-ease from 8:58 a.m. to 8:59 a.m.
Number 2155
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN, as sponsor of HB 40, noted that the bill
was heard a year ago and at the beginning of the current
legislative session.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH offered his understanding that Version H was
"before the committee."
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said that is the version he was using.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked Representative Lynn to move to adopt
Version H as a work draft.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to adopt the committee substitute (CS)
for HB 40, Version 23-LS0262\H, as a work draft.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH objected [for discussion purposes].
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1, which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
A: However (8) shall not apply to a person who
is already in possession of a valid driver's license
who applies for license renewal, or change of legal
names on a currently valid license, or replacement of
a currently valid Alaska Driver's License that has
been lost.
B. The Division of Motor Vehicles may determine
by regulation what primary documents will be
acceptable as proof of legal presence in the United
States or an alien legally admitted to the United
States, to include persons who have filed for an
appeal for amnesty for legal presence.
Number 2107
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH objected. He said the language in Conceptual
Amendment 1 is limiting. He explained that "persons who have
filed for an appeal for amnesty" may exclude those simply
attempting to gain citizenship or those who are in the country
and appealing an INS determination of whether they can stay in
the country.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN explained that the word "amnesty" was used
to address concerns stated by Representative Berkowitz [at a
prior hearing].
Number 1962
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH [moved to adopt Amendment 1 to Conceptual
Amendment 1], to delete "an appeal for amnesty for". There
being no objection, Amendment 1 to Conceptual Amendment 1 was so
ordered.
Number 1943
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG [moved to adopt Amendment 2 to
Conceptual Amendment 1], to delete "Department" and insert
"Division".
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that [Amendment 2 to Conceptual
Amendment 1] was so ordered.
Number 1917
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH ask if there was any further objection to
Conceptual Amendment 1 [as amended].
Number 1897
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if the Division of Motor Vehicles
would make its determination of which documents are acceptable,
independently of other states.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN offered his understanding that [the Division
of Motor Vehicles] would make that determination, which would
mean that [the legislature] would not have to put that
specification in statute.
Number 1829
DUANE BANNOCK, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles, Department
of Administration, on behalf of department, told Representative
Seaton that the division currently follows 13 AAC 08.330. In
regard to the question of other states and "their ability," he
said there have been sweeping changes, including the ability to
take another state's driver's license when that state has a
legal presence law. He noted that the state dealing with that
most recently is Arizona. Currently, a law in front of the
Arizona State Legislature would preclude a person getting an
Arizona driver's license by submitting their Alaska driver's
license. He added, "And I would suspect that we would have
something to follow suit with that, should HB 40 become the
law."
Number 1805
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if Mr. Bannock meant that if a
person moved to Arizona, he/she would be able to obtain an
Arizona [driver's] license, by submitting an Alaska [driver's]
license as proof of citizenship.
MR. BANNOCK answered that that would be true only if a bill like
HB 40 were to pass. Currently, if the bill in Arizona passes,
an Alaska driver's license in Arizona would not satisfy
Arizona's requirements.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if Mr. Bannock was suggesting
another amendment to HB 40 to allow "that reform you're
suggesting to be implemented."
MR. BANNOCK indicated that he would not suggest that, because it
is his opinion that [the second part of the adopted Conceptual
Amendment 1] would "allow us, by regulation, to do that very
thing."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if that would mean that if the
regulations go forward, Alaska would not accept a driver's
license from another state that didn't have proof of
citizenship.
MR. BANNOCK answered that's correct.
MR. BANNOCK, in response to a question from Representative
Seaton, offered his belief that, at last count, 36 states have a
law in content similar to HB 40, or what is referred to as "a
legal presence law." In response to a follow-up question, he
offered the following example:
Arizona has a legal presence law; so, if the Arizona
person were to come to Alaska, we would honor the
Arizona driver's license, at its face value, for
proving legal residency, because the DMV in Arizona
had already asked [for] those documents to be shown.
MR. BANNOCK, in response to a question from Representative
Gruenberg, said he doesn't know if "legal presence" is a legal
term of art; however, he said it's a phrase that he has learned
through his involvement with DMVs throughout the country. He
suggested that it may be industrial jargon.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if the term "legal presence"
should be defined.
MR. BANNOCK replied that he would have no problem with that.
Notwithstanding that, he noted that Section 8 is "the main
context of HB 40" and "kind of draws out what we're looking
for."
Number 1622
MR. BANNOCK, in response to a question from Representative
Seaton, explained as follows:
Our statute charges us to make sure we know who it is
that we are issuing a driver's license to, in essence.
The question of whether or not you should be required
to be a United States citizen or ... a person who is
here legally, is largely on your shoulders. We are
here to implement whatever the law requires us to do.
Now, what I can share with you is, through our
association of motor vehicle administrators - and
Alaska is not real cutting edge on this deal - this is
the trend that is going across America. ... Having a
legal presence law will bring us into substantial
compliance with ... the majority of the other states
in America. It will make it easier for us when taking
a new person's driver's license. It will make it
easier for you, if you were to move to another state.
MR. BANNOCK reiterated that the issue of whether a person must
be a United States citizen falls on the shoulders [of the
legislature]. Notwithstanding that, he revealed that as the
director of DMV, he is "in full support of it."
Number 1500
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH redirected the committee's attention to
Conceptual Amendment 1, as amended. He asked again if there
were further objections to Conceptual Amendment 1, as amended.
There being none, it was so ordered.
Number 1486
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he just wants to ensure that the
Alaska DMV has an adequate public purpose for "putting in this
thing that could be quite complicated and could have far-
reaching effects."
MR. BANNOCK suggested that Representative Lynn had made good
points in previous testimony. He said he has attempted to keep
[his testimony] within the division's point of view, but he said
he could deluge the committee with reams of paperwork citing
reasons why it's compelling for the state to have a legal
presence law. He mentioned "the terrorism aspect" and "illegal
aliens establishing themselves as a presence."
Number 1395
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH directed the committee's attention to an article
published in the Anchorage Daily News, [Thursday, April 22,
2004, included in the committee packet]. He offered [Conceptual
Amendment 2] to ensure that the division provides appropriate
training to its staff to implement the provisions of [HB 40].
MR. BANNOCK responded that training is ongoing at the DMV. He
said the news article included some accurate information, but
left out a lot of accurate information, as well. For example,
no less than once a month, his office seizes fraudulent
documents.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH clarified that he wants language that will show
that the legislature wants the DMV to provide training. He
suggested that [the DMV] could then counter [articles like the
aforementioned one] by saying, "We have been asked by the
legislature to provide this training; it simply affirms what
we've been doing and we're following legislative directive to
have this in Alaska to meet the requirements of law in a larger
context."
MR. BANNOCK responded, "We would cheerfully support that, sir."
Number 1266
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection to [Conceptual
Amendment 2].
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said he had no objection.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that Conceptual Amendment 2 [was
adopted].
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH closed public testimony on HB 40.
Number 1235
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to report [CSHB 40(TRA), as amended]
out of committee with individual recommendations [and the
attached zero fiscal note]. There being no objection, CSHB
40(STA) was reported out of the House State Affairs Standing
Committee.
Number 1148
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Chair Weyhrauch if he would
rescind the committee's action, because he had been out of the
room at the time and would like to sign the committee report.
Number 1137
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the action was rescinded. He
asked Representative Lynn to renew his motion.
Number 1130
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to report [CSHB 40(TRA)], as amended,
with individual recommendations and the attached zero fiscal
note. There being no objection, CSHB 40(STA) was reported out
of the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 327-POWERS/DUTIES DOTPF
Number 1127
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the next order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 327, "An Act relating to the powers and duties of
the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities; and
repealing a requirement that public facilities comply with
energy standards adopted by the Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities."
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM clarified that HB 327 is not a Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF) bill, but was
brought forth because citizens came to him wondering why a road
was being built without a bridge to connect it. He noted that
there is a companion bill in the Senate.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH reminded committee members that, at the last
hearing on HB 327, he had requested a copy of 23 U.S.C. 135,
which is referenced in the bill. He said it is an extremely
large document that is available to anyone who would like read
it.
The committee took a brief at-ease.
Number 0973
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH moved to adopt the committee substitute (CS) for
HB 327, Version 23-LS1135\U, Utermohle, 4/24/04, as a work
draft.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN objected for discussion purposes.
Number 0950
TODD LARKIN, Staff to Representative Jim Holm, Alaska State
Legislature, testifying on behalf of Representative Holm,
sponsor, offered a brief review. He stated that the bill
originally would have eliminated the requirement for study of
costs and benefits, but Version U reconfigures when that study
would be required and under what circumstances. The intent is
to stop frivolous lawsuits that halt projects that are in the
middle of or nearly ready to go to construction. He noted that
a list had been compiled of projects that could be stopped.
Number 0851
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked why [paragraphs (14) and (15) in
Section 2] were going to be deleted.
MR. LARKIN explained that the energy performance standards were
created in 1980, after a period of great concern over an energy
crisis. Deleting them is a matter of house cleaning, because
the authority for implementing these [standards] is no longer
DOT&PF's. In response to a follow-up question from
Representative Seaton, he clarified, "It's just redundant
statute at this point; the concerns are being addressed."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked why the part of paragraph (15)
that addresses providing planning assistance should not remain.
MR. LARKIN indicated that school districts, through the use of
state and federal monies, often through bonds, takes care of
"this."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he doesn't want "somebody coming
back and saying, 'Gee, we wish you still did this.'"
MR. LARKIN indicated that, based upon the research that's been
done regarding the bill, that would not happen.
Number 0623
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON told Mr. Larkin that he would like to know
"who is doing that in rural educational facilities, ... for
those energy audits."
Number 0593
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN directed attention to an e-mail from [Ann
Flister, included in the committee packet], which expresses
concern regarding a construction project that would affect [her
home]. He asked Mr. Larkin to address her concerns.
MR. LARKIN said the concerns of Ann Flister and her husband were
in regard to the original bill version and, after a lengthy
conversation with Mr. Larkin, they maintain their reservations
to Version U. He noted that the cost benefit study had been
done twice on the project and the project failed to rise to cost
benefit status twice. He said, "In my mind, it is a perfect
example of the less than usual nature of the cost benefit study.
It is a totally separate document that stands on its own."
MR. LARKIN stated that the bill would have no effect on [the
Flister's situation], as unfortunate as that situation is. He
indicated that [the Flisters] maintain their objection, based
upon principle. He also indicated that people have a
misunderstanding of cost benefits, because the word "cost" is
used. He clarified that costs are considered in many ways
during the process of getting a road project together; cost
benefit studies just compare benefits with cost, dollar per
dollar.
MR. LARKIN emphasized, "We are not eliminating costs, we are
only eliminating this specific comparison study and, in fact,
we're not eliminating it, we're modifying it by this bill."
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN thanked Mr. Larkin for his clarification.
He noted that he is a real estate agent and if he were to list
[the Flister's property], he would have to have a disclosure
"about that thick," and he said he doesn't think anybody would
want to make an offer on the property, because it is in limbo.
He stated for the record that he is very concerned about "that
one."
Number 0248
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH [moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1], as
follows:
On page 4, lines 8, 10, and 13:
Before "report"
Insert "summary"
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection to [Conceptual
Amendment 1]. There being none, it was so ordered.
Number 0130
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH moved Amendment 2, [labeled 23-LS1135\U.2,
Utermohle, 4/24/04], which read as follows:
Page 4, line 20:
Delete "if the commissioner determines
appropriate"
Insert "except as provided in (e) of this
section"
Page 5, line 20:
Delete "uniform"
Page 5, line 23, through page 6, line 1:
Delete all material.
Insert "The regulations may provide for an
exemption from the requirement to prepare an estimate
of benefits for a specific transportation project if
(1) the project is required for compliance
with a federal or state statute or regulation;
(2) the small scale of the project makes
the preparation of an estimate of benefits for the
project impractical; or
(3) the cost of preparing an estimate of
benefits for the project is excessive relative to the
estimated cost of the project."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH moved to adopt an amendment to Amendment 2, such
that lines 8-17 [as numbered on the amendment] would read as
follows:
Page 5, line 23:
Delete all material.
Insert "The regulations may provide for an
exemption from the requirement to prepare an estimate
of benefits for a specific transportation project if
(1) the project is required for compliance
with a federal or state statute or regulation;
(2) the small scale of the project makes
the preparation of an estimate of benefits for the
project impractical.
renumber accordingly
TAPE 04-72, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH reiterated the amendment to Amendment 2. In
response to Mr. Larkin, he said "the factors" would be the same,
but the amendment to Amendment 2 "just makes it better in terms
of this cost benefit issue."
Number 0137
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection [to the
amendment to Amendment 2]. There being none, it was so ordered.
Number 0148
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection to Amendment 2,
[as amended]. There being no objection, Amendment 2, [as
amended] was adopted.
Number 0173
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to page 5, line 14,
regarding changing the requirement for a [construction] program
from two years to one year. He asked if that would have an
influence on the [Statewide Transportation Improvement Program
(STIP)]. He expressed concern that projects already scheduled
would get repeatedly "pushed off."
Number 0332
MR. LARKIN clarified that the programs would be forwarded to the
governor and legislature for review only, not as an option for
the legislature to "rearrange them each year."
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM said, "This isn't really a STIP
reorganization."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON requested a report from the sponsor
defining "the role of this in its relationship to the STIP." He
said if it turns out that it would mean an annual review and
reorganization of the STIP, he will object to that.
Number 0486
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON turned to page 3, [paragraph] (15). He
noted that many rural schools are having problems because they
have not been constructed to standards, and he doesn't think
that the individual school districts are taking over "this
function." He said he would like to leave [paragraph] (15) in
the bill, until it is discovered that "there is someone ... else
doing that."
Number 0561
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM returned to the previously referred to [23
U.S.C. 135] and said, "That has all the appropriate oversights
for those projects, because they're federal projects."
Furthermore, he noted that the planning assistance no longer
comes from DOT&PF. Notwithstanding that, he said it would be
okay with him if Representative Seaton wanted to take out
[paragraph (15)].
Number 0662
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH clarified that Amendment 3 would maintain the
language in [paragraph (15), beginning on page 3, line 28],
which read as follows:
(15) PROVIDE PLANNING ASSISTANCE, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ENERGY AUDITS AND RELATED TECHNICAL
SERVICES, TO SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND REGIONAL EDUCATIONAL
ATTENDANCE AREAS TO DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT
(A) STANDARDS FOR THE DESIGN,
CONSTRUCTION, AND OPERATION OF RURAL EDUCATIONAL
FACILITES; AND
(B) ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES FOR
RURAL EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES;
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection to Amendment 3.
There being none, it was so ordered.
Number 0684
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH offered his understanding that he had made a
motion to report [the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB
327, Version 23-LS1135\U, Utermohle, 4/24/04, as amended, with
individual recommendations and the attached fiscal notes]; and
that Representative Lynn had objected.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN removed his objection.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH stated that there were no objections.
Therefore, CSHB 327(STA) was reported out of the House State
Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 523-VOTERS/VOTING/POLITICAL PARTIES/ELECTIONS
Number 0700
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the last order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 523, "An Act relating to qualifications of
voters, voter registration, voter residence, precinct boundary
modification, recognized political parties, voters unaffiliated
with political parties, early voting, absentee voting, ballot
counting, voting by mail, initiative, referendum, recall, and
definitions; and providing for an effective date."
[In the following testimony by Mr. Thompson, he refers to the
committee substitute (CS) for HB 523, Version 23-GH2021\X,
Kurtz, 4/26/04, which is not yet adopted by the committee as a
work draft.]
Number 0724
MYRL THOMPSON, Chairman, Ogan is So Gone recall, directed the
committee's attention to page 17, line 25. He asked why the
words "[UPON CERTIFYING]" are being replaced by the word "If".
He mentioned reading the 28-page report by John Sedor - the
independent counsel hired by the State of Alaska to look in to
the Ogan is So Gone recall. One of the tenets in that report
was that no hurdles or encumbrances should be put upon the
process. He indicated that [the proposed language change] seems
to be a weakening of the original intent of the recall.
MR. THOMPSON revealed that a few hundred people who were
registered voters and met all the qualifications of voters
according to state statute seemed to have been not qualified for
the petition [for the Ogan is So Gone recall]. He surmised the
reason is because some registered voters have moved and have not
submitted a change of address to the Division of Elections. He
stated his belief that by signing a petition and providing their
address on that petition, these folks are actually showing
participation in the electoral process. He suggested an
amendment should be introduced to remedy that situation. He
offered his understanding that if he were in Juneau during
election time and wanted to vote, he could fill out a question
ballot. He noted that that type of option was not available to
registered voters who wanted to sign the recall petition but
were outside the area in which they were registered.
Number 0972
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM asked, "They were disqualified for what
reason?"
MR. THOMPSON answered that "they aren't currently registered in
District H, even though they ... are living in District H and
they are qualified voters. He suggested that the director of
the Division of Elections might be able to further explain.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM stated, "If you have a residency requirement
to live within a district so you vote within a district, it
doesn't seem reasonable that you would come from another
district and go into another district ... and want to change the
makeup of that district without being a resident."
MR. THOMPSON clarified that those people are not residents of
the previous district; they have moved.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM responded that they wouldn't be disqualified
as residents then.
MR. THOMPSON said they seemed to have been [disqualified]. He
said he talked to a number of those people who said they are
qualified voters. In response to a comment from Representative
Holm, he emphasized that he is not referring to someone who
would come from District H to District J, for example, disrupt
the management of that district, and then move back into
District H again.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM offered his understanding that state law
requires that a person has to change his/her registration when
he/she moves. He concluded, "Therefore, it's inherent upon you
to change your registration so that you can exercise your right
to vote. It's not inherent upon the state to back up on the
other side of that and say, 'Oh, yeah, you meant to do it, but
you didn't do it.'"
MR. THOMPSON stated that, considering the current low voter
participation rate, anything that enhances voter participation
in elections is "probably where we should be going," as opposed
to doing anything that excludes qualified voters from voting.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM emphasized that the voter is nonqualified if
he/she is not registered. In response to Mr. Thompson, he
specified that the voters in question [who were not allowed to
sign the petition] may be registered in one district, but are
not qualified if they are not registered in the district in
which they want to vote.
MR. THOMPSON reiterated that he doesn't like to see hundreds of
people who want to be involved in the process be
disenfranchised.
Number 1166
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said, "They're disenfranchised by their own
inaction."
Number 1174
JIM SYKES, Election Specialist, Green Party of Alaska, brought
attention to his written testimony [included in the committee
packet]. He noted that [at a previous hearing on HB 523] the
issue of reducing the percentage required for a registration
test produced some questions, which he said he would address
now. He noted that the handout shows that only a handful of
states have both a vote test and a registration test, and "in
every other case, the registration test is far, far below what
the vote test is."
MR. SYKES said Representative Coghill had asked how hard it is
to get a signature for a nominating petition. He reported that
Richard Winger, Publisher, Ballot Access News, said that, by
far, the easiest requirement to get is a vote test; getting a
vote is easier than getting a signature for a nominating
petition, but getting a signature on a petition is "about seven
times easier than getting somebody to register to a political
party." He said he has only been able to find three political
parties anywhere in the United States that have an excess of one
percent of the registered voters in that state. He said he is
trying to emphasize that a 1-percent registration test is high
in itself and a 3-percent [registration test] is unreasonably
high.
MR. SYKES mentioned a poll that revealed the number of people
"registering away from political parties" is currently 39
percent, whereas it was 37 percent in 1979. He stated, "If this
is a trend going on today, it makes the requirement of
registering anybody to a particular political party much more
difficult." In Alaska, he said, there has been a majority of
people not registered to any political party for a long time - a
fact that hasn't changed. He concluded, "If we're going to have
a registration requirement, it should be reasonable. It's good
public policy, and I urge your support for this amendment, and I
think we'll all be better off for it."
Number 1325
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, regarding Mr. Thompson's previously
stated concerns regarding the language change on page 17, line
25, offered his understanding that the change "just updates it
to current style."
Number 1373
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced he was closing public testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked Mr. Sykes where Richard Winger is
from.
MR. SYKES offered his belief that Mr. Winger publishes his
newsletter from San Francisco.
Number 1429
LAURA GLAISER, Director, Division of Elections, Office of the
Lieutenant Governor, responding to Representative Gruenberg's
comment, confirmed that the language in question was a drafting
change to "clean and conform as we proceeded in our promise to
make the petition process clear in initiatives, referendum, and
recall."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would be willing to work on Mr.
Thompson's concern regarding those registered voters who cannot
sign a petition outside of the district in which they are
registered.
Number 1458
REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH moved to adopt the committee substitute
(CS) for HB 523, Version 23-GH2021\X, Kurtz, 4/26/04, as a work
draft.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM objected.
Number 1537
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 23-
GH2021\X.5, Kurtz, 4/27/04, which read as follows:
Page 3, following line 30:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 3. AS 15.07.127 is amended to read:
Sec. 15.07.127. Preparation of master register.
The director shall prepare both a statewide list and a
list by precinct of the names and addresses of all
persons whose names appear on the master register and
their political party affiliation. Subject to the
limitations of 15.07.195(b), any [ANY] person may
obtain a copy of the list, or a part of the list, or
an electronic format containing both residence and
mailing addresses of voters, by applying to the
director and paying to the state treasury a fee as
determined by the director."
Page 23, line 15:
Delete "23 - 46"
Insert "24 - 47"
Page 23, line 18:
Delete "sec. 9"
Insert "sec. 10"
There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
Number 1566
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 2, labeled 23-
GH2021\X.3, Kurtz, 4/27/04, which read as follows:
Page 11, line 26, through page 12, line 11:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 25. AS 15.45.090 is repealed and reenacted
to read:
Sec. 15.45.090. Preparation of petition. Within
seven days after an application is certified, the
lieutenant governor shall prepare a sufficient number
of sequentially numbered petitions to allow full
circulation throughout the state. Each petition shall
contain
(1) a copy of the proposed bill if the
number of words included in both the formal and
substantive provisions of the bill is 500 or less;
(2) an impartial summary of the subject
matter of the bill;
(3) the warning prescribed in AS 15.45.100;
(4) sufficient space for printed name, date
of birth, signature, and address of each person
signing the petition;
(5) sufficient space at the bottom of each
signature page for the information required by
AS 15.45.130(8); and
(6) other specifications prescribed by the
lieutenant governor to ensure proper handling and
control."
Page 14, lines 11 - 30:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 32. AS 15.45.320 is repealed and reenacted
to read:
Sec. 15.45.320. Preparation of petition. Within
seven days after an application is certified, the
lieutenant governor shall prepare a sufficient number
of sequentially numbered petitions to allow full
circulation throughout the state. Each petition shall
contain
(1) a copy of the act to be referred, if
the number of words included in both the formal and
substantive provisions of the bill is 500 or less;
(2) the statement of approval or rejection;
(3) an impartial summary of the subject
matter of the act;
(4) the warning prescribed in AS 15.45.330;
(5) sufficient space for the printed name,
date of birth, signature, and address of each person
signing the petition;
(6) sufficient space at the bottom of each
page for the information required by AS 15.45.360(8);
and
(7) other specifications prescribed by the
lieutenant governor to ensure proper handling and
control."
Page 17, line 24, through page 18, line 10:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 40. AS 15.45.560 is repealed and reenacted
to read:
Sec. 15.45.560. Preparation of petition. Within
seven days after an application is certified, the
director shall prepare a sufficient number of
sequentially numbered petitions to allow full
circulation throughout the state. Each petition shall
contain
(1) the name and office of the person to be
recalled;
(2) the statement of the grounds for recall
included in the application;
(3) the statement of warning required in
AS 15.45.570;
(4) sufficient space for the printed name,
date of birth, signature, and address of each person
signing the petition;
(5) sufficient space at the bottom of each
page for the information required by AS 15.45.600(8);
and
(6) other specifications prescribed by the director
to ensure proper handling and control."
Number 1582
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH objected.
The committee took an at-ease from 10:11 a.m. to 10:13 a.m.
Number 1595
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG indicated that Amendment 2 is a
conforming amendment that he tried to make consistent with other
language.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH expressed uncertainty towards Amendment 2.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that if "Within seven days" is a
problem, it can be deleted.
MS. GLAISER responded as follows:
To be clear, the seven days is only on the referendum
currently in state law. It's okay with us. We got
the recall out in three or four days. We normally
turn around a petition -- as you can guess, the people
that carry petitions are very anxious. You know, we
don't delay at that section; if there's ever a delay,
it's in a legal interpretation ... when an application
is filed, which we don't have control over.
MS. GLAISER indicated that it is up to the committee to decide
if [seven days] is a reasonable amount of time to prepare a
petition.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH interjected, "If we believe it's a reasonable
amount of time is irrelevant."
MS. GLAISER explained, "Well, this onus is now on [the]
lieutenant governor, so I can't speak ... for the lieutenant
governor's office." She told Chair Weyhrauch that "the seven
days" is on the referendum section. She stated, "It is a policy
call .... If you want to conform them all and do the seven days
..., that's correct; it would be conforming language to the
other sections where a group petitions their government."
Number 1822
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON indicated that conformity would be
beneficial.
Number 1841
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH [moved to adopt] Amendment 1 to Amendment 2, as
follows:
On page 1, beginning on line 4 [as numbered on the
Amendment 2]:
Delete "Within seven days after an application is
certified,"
Change the "t" to "T" at the beginning of the next
sentence.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection to Amendment 1
to Amendment 2. There being none, it was so ordered.
Number 1885
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH moved to adopt Amendment 2 to Amendment 2, as
follows:
On page 2, beginning on line 18 [as numbered on
Amendment 2]:
Delete "Within seven days after an application is
certified;"
Change the "t" to "T" at the beginning of the next
sentence.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked Ms. Glaiser to confirm that "you could do
that, but you're not doing that."
MS. GLAISER answered that's correct. She added, "You would be
adding to law a date certain."
Number 1921
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Coghill, Lynn,
Holm, Seaton, and Weyhrauch voted in favor of Amendment 2 to
Amendment 2. Representative Gruenberg voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 2 to Amendment 2 was adopted by a vote of
5-1.
Number 1940
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH removed his objection to Amendment 2 [as
amended]. He asked if there was any further objection to
Amendment 2 [as amended]. There being none, Amendment 2, as
amended, was adopted.
Number 1984
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 3, labeled 23-
GH2021\X.1, Kurtz, 4/26/04, which read as follows:
Page 22, line 8:
Delete "three"
Insert "one [THREE]"
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH objected.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that there is no reason that
parties should have to "run candidates for major offices" simply
to remain on the ballot. He said it's an imposition on a
party's voters, on the party itself, and on the party candidate.
Number 2004
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Lynn and Gruenberg
voted in favor of Amendment 3. Representatives Holm, Seaton,
Coghill, and Weyhrauch voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 3
failed by a vote of 2-4.
Number 2030
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to adopt Amendment 4, labeled 23-
GH2021\X.6, Kurtz, 4/27/04, which read as follows:
Page 3, following line 30:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 3. AS 15.07.127 is amended to read:
Sec. 15.07.127. Preparation of master register.
The director shall prepare both a statewide list and a
list by precinct of the names, [AND] addresses, and,
when available, telephone numbers of all persons whose
names appear on the master register and their
political party affiliation. Subject to the
limitations in 15.07.195(b), any [ANY] person may
obtain a copy of the list, or a part of the list, or
an electronic format containing both residence and
mailing addresses of voters by applying to the
director and paying to the state treasury a fee as
determined by the director. A candidate who has filed
for office under AS 15.25 may obtain a copy of the
list, or a part of the list, containing telephone
numbers, when available, as well as names and
addresses."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 4, line 7:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following paragraphs accordingly.
Page 4, line 11:
Delete "and"
Insert ","
Following "address":
Insert ", and telephone number"
Page 4, lines 13 - 14:
Delete "the voter's name and address"
Insert "this information"
Page 23, line 15:
Delete "23 - 46"
Insert "24 - 47"
Page 23, line 18:
Delete "sec. 9"
Insert "sec. 10"
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH objected.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN explained that Amendment 4 would facilitate
the process of political candidates being able to contact the
electorate, which would enhance communication between the two.
Number 2070
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected to Amendment 4. He said he
thinks that "putting phone numbers out is just asking for all
the voters to become a call list for telemarketers." He
indicated that the information could be obtained from phone
books and voter lists.
The committee took an at-ease from 10:25 a.m. to 10:28 a.m.
Number 2120
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gruenberg and Lynn
voted in favor of Amendment 4. Representatives Holm, Seaton,
and Weyhrauch voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 4 failed
by a vote of 2-3.
Number 2157
MS. GLAISER indicated there were some inconsistencies in
conforming language, regarding changes offered by Representative
Gruenberg: Page 12, line 30, read "the circulator signing the
affidavit"; and page 16, beginning on line 1, and page 19,
beginning on line 18, read "the person signing the affidavit".
Ms. Glaiser recommended that the language should read either
"the circulator" in all three places or "the person".
Number 2190
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 5, as follows:
On page 12, line 30
Between "the" and "signing"
Delete "circulator"
Insert "person"
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that "circulator" was a
typographical error.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that, there being no objection,
Amendment 5 was adopted.
Number 2224
MS. GLAISER drew focus to page 13, lines 11-15 and asked the
committee to compare the language between those lines and the
lines on page 16, lines 13-17. She said the language is
different and should be conforming.
MS. GLAISER also noted that Representative Gruenberg had asked
whether ballot rotation would affect municipalities and
boroughs. She stated that there are municipalities and boroughs
whose code references state law; therefore, they would be
required to do ballot rotation if the state law was changed.
She continued as follows:
In addition, the way this language is written, we
would do ballot rotation on REA and CSRA elections, as
well, because it just says "in any contested race".
Number 2267
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG responded, "It was not my intent to do
that, and we'll see if we can come up with something to
eliminate local people on [this]."
The meeting was recessed at 10:05 a.m. to a call of the chair.
TAPE 04-73, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH called the meeting back to order at 4:24 p.m.
Present at the call back were Representatives Holm, Seaton,
Lynn, Gruenberg, and Weyhrauch.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the committee would return to HB
523.
Number 0060
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH moved to adopt Amendment 6, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Page 5, line 16: Insert "in a state primary or
general election" following the word "office"
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection to Amendment 6.
There being no objection, Amendment 6 was adopted.
Number 0070
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH moved to adopt Amendment 7, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Page 16, lines 13-17: Delete all material and insert
the following:
(8) if the circulator has received payment or
agreed to receive payment for the collection of
signatures on the petition, before circulating the
petition, the circulator prominently place, in the
space provided under AS 15.45.320(6), the name of each
person or organization that has paid or agreed to pay
the circulator for collection of signatures on the
petition.
Page 19, line 30 to Page 20, line 3: Delete all
material and insert the following:
(8) if the circulator has received payment or
agreed to receive payment for the collection of
signatures on the petition, before circulating the
petition, the circulator prominently placed, in the
space provided under AS 15.45.560(5), the name of each
person or organization that has paid or agreed to pay
the circulator for collection of signatures on the
petition.
Number 0084
MS. GLAISER indicated that if [Amendment 7] is adopted, it would
put referendum and recall "at the same place."
Number 0164
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection to Amendment 7.
There being none, Amendment 7 was adopted.
Number 0175
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH moved to adopt Amendment 8, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Page 22, lines 22-23: Delete all material.
Number 0185
MS. GLAISER explained that Amendment 8 would remove the
reference to statewide office, because the term is no longer [in
the proposed legislation due to foregoing amendments made by the
committee].
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated he had no objection [to
Amendment 8].
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that, there being no objection to
Amendment 8, it was so ordered.
Number 0286
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to report HB 523, Version 23-
GH2021\X, Kurtz, 4/26/04, [as amended], out of committee [with
individual recommendations and any accompanying fiscal notes].
There being no objection, CSHB 523(STA) was moved out of the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 4:30
p.m.