SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE March 28, 1994 1:37 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Senator Robin Taylor, Chairman Senator Rick Halford, Vice-Chairman Senator George Jacko Senator Dave Donley Senator Suzanne Little MEMBERS ABSENT All members present COMMITTEE CALENDAR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 195(FIN) "An Act authorizing youth courts to provide for peer adjudication of minors who have allegedly committed violations of state or municipal laws, and renaming the community legal assistance grant fund and amending the purposes for which grants may be made from that fund in order to provide financial assistance for organization and initial operation of youth courts." SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 8 Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to capital projects and loan appropriations, and to the expenditure limit. SENATE BILL NO. 279 "An Act relating to operating or driving a motor vehicle, commercial motor vehicle, aircraft, or watercraft." CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 254(JUD) am(ct rule fld) "An Act relating to open meetings of governmental bodies." PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION HB 195 - See Health, Education & Social Services minutes dated 2/23/94. SJR 8 - See State Affairs minutes dated 1/27/93. See Judiciary minutes dated 2/15/93, 2/19/93, 2/22/93. SB 279 - See State Affairs minutes dated 3/9/94 & 3/11/94. HB 254 - See Judiciary minutes dated 3/9/94, 3/16/94, 3/21/94. WITNESS REGISTER Paula Terrel, Staff to Representative Joe Sitton State Capitol Juneau, AK 99801-1182 POSITION STATEMENT: Offered information on HB 195 John Ely, President Anchorage Youth Court Anchorage, AK Phone No. (907) 278-8533 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 195 Senator Randy Phillips State Capitol Juneau, AK 99801-1182 POSITION STATEMENT: Prime Sponsor of SJR 8 C.E. Swackhammer, Deputy Commissioner Department of Public Safety P.O. Box 111200 Juneau, AK 99811-1200 POSITION STATEMENT: Offered information in support of SB 279 Steve Barnes P.O. Box 332 Cordova, AK 99574 POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 279 Patsy Fisher P.O. Box 321 Cordova, AK 99574 POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 279 Juanita Hensley, Chief of Drivers Services Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Public Safety P.O. Box 20020 Juneau, AK 99802-0020 POSITION STATEMENT: Offered information on SB 279 Tam Cook, Director Legal Services Division Legislative Affairs Agency 130 Seward St., Suite 409 Juneau, AK 99801-2105 POSITION STATEMENT: Offered information on HB 254 John McKay Anchorage, AK Phone No. (907) 276 5231 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 254 ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 94-26, SIDE A Number 001 JUD - 3/28/94 CHAIRMAN ROBIN TAYLOR called the Judiciary Committee meeting to order at 1:37 p.m. He brought CSHB 195(FIN) (AUTHORIZING YOUTH COURTS) before the committee as the first order of business. PAULA TERREL, staff to Representative Joe Sitton who is prime sponsor of HB 195, explained the legislation is based on a Youth Court Program, the only one in Alaska. It is a diversion program that has had a good success rate in Anchorage. Minors who have committed an offense, or allegedly committed a offense, can decide to go into this diversion program if the juvenile intake of the Department of Health & Social Services and their parents agree. HB 195 will set up in statute the authority for youth court programs to take place. It will also set up a grant program under DCRA which will allow communities, whether urban or rural, to apply for a $5,000 one time only grant that would have to be matched by each nonprofit or community as seed money to start up the program. She noted the bill is set up so that it would allow for maximum flexibility depending on how the communities want to handle it. Ms. Terrel pointed out that recidivism rate is very low in the Anchorage program. Number 083 SENATOR HALFORD said the bill provides that the record be sealed, but he wondered if the bill provides access to the record of disposition of a case to the victim of the offense, essentially for a civil case, because the victim may want to sue the offender and the parents for damages. He added that he would be violently opposed to anything that weakens that right more than it already is. JOHN ELY, an Anchorage lawyer and President of Anchorage Youth Court testifying from Anchorage, said one the main things the Anchorage Youth Court tries to teach the defendant is the cost of their crime. Restitution is one of the main emphases that they give out, along with community service. Any property damage that's done is almost always compensated for through restitution. However, there is difficulty in allowing civil proceedings to flow from juvenile proceedings because of a strict confidentiality involved in all juvenile proceedings. In youth court, there is one added difficulty to allowing the information to go, and that is that no actual conviction will show on the juvenile's record after completing the youth court diversion program sentencing if they are found guilty in youth court. Number 612 SENATOR HALFORD said he has no interest in a civil follow-up if, in fact, there is restitution, but if the restitution isn't paid, then we've just established a mechanism to protect the juvenile from having to pay the bill for what he did. MR. ELY answered that as it stands now, it would still be very difficult to use the juvenile criminal record in a civil proceeding. SENATOR HALFORD noted that legislation has passed the Senate that will make changes to juvenile waivers and juvenile information. SENATOR TAYLOR said that he would have staff make sure that the provisions incorporated within the current SB 54 are in balance with the legislation before the committee. SENATOR HALFORD said that with that exception, he has no problem with the legislation. Number 186 SENATOR DONLEY asked who establishes guidelines that the prosecutors follow for youth court. MR. ELY replied that they prosecute under both state and municipal laws, depending on the offense, the arresting officer's citing of the offense, etc. The guidelines for prosecution are established by the youth court bars themselves and they are not extremely formal. The prosecutors are students themselves, and there are legal advisors to the youth court. SENATOR DONLEY related that concern had been expressed to him by several police officers that after arrests had been made, the officers weren't even requested to come in and testify, and that nothing was done to the offenders. MR. ELY said he was surprised, and he would like to talk to Senator Donley further about the instances because there may be some misunderstandings. He added that they work as closely with law enforcement as they can. Number 260 SENATOR DONLEY also spoke to the public perception that a lot of these juveniles are repeat offenders, that they commit these crimes over and over again before they are formally adjudicated as delinquents, and even that system is not very effective as far as the punishment being given. MR. ELY clarified that the youth court only deals with first time offenders. Number 325 There being no further testimony on HB 195, SENATOR TAYLOR stated the bill would be held in committee for further consideration. Number 340 JUD - 3/28/94 SENATOR TAYLOR brought SJR 8 (CAPITAL PROJECTS/EXPENDITURE LIMIT) before the committee as the next order of business. SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS explained the legislation is basically a spending limit plan. It sets the limit at $2.3 billion from FY 95 through the year 2000. The only exceptions to the spending limit would be the appropriations to the permanent fund, permanent fund dividends, budget reserves, revenues from taxes approved by voters, bond proceeds, principal and interest on bonds issued by the state, money received in trust for a specific purpose, endowment earnings, and reserves from public corporations. The limit cannot be exceeded unless there is two-thirds affirmative vote of both the House and the Senate. If inflation exceeds 6 percent, the Legislature may appropriate an amount to offset the effect of inflation that exceeds 6 percent. Any revenues in excess of the expenditure limit will be deposited in the constitutional budget reserve account. It also requires that at least 10 percent of all money appropriated for each fiscal year be appropriated for capital projects and loans. Number 360 SENATOR TAYLOR asked if this would have an effect on the last three years' budget cycles. SENATOR PHILLIPS answered it would have an effect on both last year and this year. SENATOR TAYLOR asked if it was realistic to try to obtain a spending limitation at this level. SENATOR PHILLIPS acknowledged it was, because in the future, the state will be at that point whether this is in place or not. SENATOR TAYLOR responded that wasn't necessarily true, because the Legislature could start spending money out of different accounts that are still readily available for appropriation. Number 390 SENATOR LITTLE, referring to the inflation factor, asked if this legislation takes into account that fact that everything will cost more. SENATOR PHILLIPS answered that right now inflation is about at 3 percent and this allows for an upper cap of 6 percent. If it goes over that, the Legislature may appropriate an amount to offset the effect of inflation that exceeds 6 percent. SENATOR TAYLOR pointed out that if the inflation rate were at 5 percent, his formula would not allow for any adjustment to take that 5 percent into consideration. SENATOR LITTLE said she had some real concerns with school districts and everybody else in the state having to eat the cost of inflation without severely damaging programs. SENATOR PHILLIPS stated he would not have a problem with amending that language. Number 420 SENATOR DONLEY made a motion that on page 1, line 7, to change the money appropriated for capital projects and loans from 10 percent to 5 percent. SENATOR JACKO objected, stating that capital projects are more important in some parts of the state than others, and making it less is not reflective of that. The roll was taken with the following result: Senator Donley voted "Yea" and Senators Taylor, Halford, Jacko and Little voted "Nay." The Chairman stated the motion failed. Number 480 After further discussion on the inflation factor, SENATOR TAYLOR moved that page 2, lines 14 and 15, replace "6" with "3." Hearing no objection, the amendment was adopted. SENATOR DONLEY asked where the state's share of local school construction projects fits in. SENATOR PHILLIPS answered that it isn't in here, it is part of the operating budget, and he wouldn't be opposed to adding that to the 10 percent capital projects budget. Number 520 SENATOR JACKO asked what percentage was appropriated last year for capital projects. SENATOR PHILLIPS estimated it was close to 25 percent. SENATOR JACKO moved that on page 1, line 7, change "10 percent" to "25 percent." SENATOR LITTLE objected. The roll was taken with the following result: Senator Jacko voted "Yea" and Senators Taylor, Halford, Donley and Little voted "Nay." The amendment failed. Number 545 SENATOR TAYLOR moved that on page 1, line 12, and on page 2, line 9, change "1995" to "1996" and change "2000" to "2001" and on page 2, line 25, change "2000" to "2001." Hearing no objection, the amendment was adopted. SENATOR DONLEY asked what the interplay was between this amendment and the existing Article IX, Section 16, and why not just eliminate it. SENATOR PHILLIPS suggested a repealer could be put in saying that if this is approved that section could be repealed. SENATOR DONLEY commented he thought it is more preferable to put this on the books and just get rid of Section 16, which is the old spending limitation. TAPE 94-26, SIDE B Number 015 SENATOR DONLEY moved a conceptual amendment that the resolution would repeal Article IX, Section 16 of the Constitution of the State of Alaska. SENATOR HALFORD amended the conceptual amendment that the resolution should be redrafted so that it becomes a replacement for the existing Article 18, Section 16. Hearing no objection, the conceptual amendment was adopted. Number 040 SENATOR TAYLOR stated that after a committee substitute incorporating the amendments was drafted, SJR 8 would be back before the committee for final action. Number 050 JUD - 3/28/94 SENATOR TAYLOR brought SB 279 (DWI LAWS) before the committee and noted that it was the same as HB 445 which was being worked in the e House. It was further noted there was a draft CSSB 279(JUD) for the committee's consideration. C.W. SWACKHAMMER, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Public Safety, explained the Governor introduced the two pieces of legislation based upon Alaska being number three in the nation in alcohol and drug-related traffic fatalities. In 1992, there were 382 major injury accidents involving 550 drivers and 89 fatality accidents involving 125 drivers. The legislation changes the implied consent law to make it applicable to all drivers that are involved in fatal or serious injury accidents. The ability to take blood and urine from the drivers will provide a much needed tool in an attempt to remove drunk drivers from the road. The implied consent is the same as the implied consent for the toxcimeter. Number 080 SENATOR DONLEY pointed out that this doesn't require any reasonable suspicion by the arresting officer that the driver was drinking or was under the influence of alcohol or a drug. MR. SWACKHAMMER agreed, and said the thing that is critical in major injury and fatality accidents is time in terms of alcohol levels or blood levels. He spoke to the positive aspect to the innocent person by taking someone's blood or urine to be able to prove the fact that the individual was not intoxicated or on drugs. He added it will give everyone involved in these injury and fatal accidents some facts to go on. Currently, there is not a process without a search warrant to screen for drugs. SENATOR DONLEY voiced his concern with requiring the ordinary person who was involved in an accident, but who had not caused the accident, into giving blood and urine samples. He wondered want the Supreme Court would say about such a requirement, and he requested that a legal opinion be requested on the question. Number 190 SENATOR TAYLOR stated the committee would take testimony over the Legislative Teleconference Network. STEVE BARNES, testifying from Cordova, related that his wife and child were killed earlier in the month in Anchorage, while traveling to a judo tournament, by a drunk driver who had walked out of a half-way house. He said warrants issued for individuals walking out of half-way houses are not pursued, and he suggested taking care of the problem before it happens by instituting tougher penalties for repeat offenders of DWI. He strongly urged passage of a provision such as contained in HB 542 which would make the fifth DWI offense a class C felony. SENATOR TAYLOR agreed that SB 279 could be amended to include the felony provision. Number 245 SENATOR HALFORD thanked Mr. Barnes for his testimony and his continued interest in benefits to others, and he said he wished it weren't in this situation. SENATOR TAYLOR also expressed the committee's condolences to Mr. Barnes and its appreciation for his testimony. Number 253 PATSY FISHER, a member of the Cordova City Council testifying from Cordova, echoed Mr. Barnes' comments, and said the revocation of licenses is not keeping the drunk drivers off of the road. She urged that the committee take steps to make a third offense a felony, and to impose stiffer penalties so that more lives are not lost because of drunk drivers. Number 265 SENATOR TAYLOR noted that Section 8 on page 7 of the draft committee substitute incorporates the felony for the third offender. It provides that a person would be guilty of a class C felony if convicted of driving while intoxicated and has two previous convictions or more on their record. It also provides for a minimum sentence of imprisonment of 360 days and a fine of not less than $1,000. Number 275 SENATOR HALFORD moved that CSSB 279(JUD) be adopted as a working document. Hearing no objection, the Chairman stated the committee substitute was adopted and was before the committee. SENATOR HALFORD moved that on page 7, line 17, change "$1,000" to "$5,000." Hearing no objection, the amendment was adopted. Number 307 SENATOR DONLEY asked if the new subsection provides for the furloughing of prisoners. SENATOR TAYLOR answered that it does not. SENATOR HALFORD commented that he likes the $5,000 fine, but he has concerns with the cuts that are being made in the Department of Corrections' budget, and he wondered how else the penalties could be increased in a way that would not greatly increase the Corrections' budget. He also suggested that the person who provides a vehicle to a person who has previous DWIs should be penalized as well. Number 330 SENATOR DONLEY expressed his frustration that the House has passed a bill that does away with the requirement that individuals who got DWIs insure all of their vehicles. Number 372 SENATOR LITTLE inquired what the current prison time requirement is for DWIs. JUANITA HENSLEY, Division of Motor Vehicles, Department of Public Safety, said the first offense is a minimum of 72 hours, the second offense is a mandatory 20 consecutive days, the third offense is a minimum of 60 consecutive days, the fourth offense is a minimum of 120 days, the fifth offense is 240 days, and the sixth and subsequent offense is 360 days. SENATOR LITTLE voiced her concern that with the changes made in the committee substitute there will be a dramatic change in the fiscal note by the Department of Corrections. She has a problem with cutting drug and alcohol abuse programs, not adequately funding the prison system, and then passing bills like this. SENATOR TAYLOR pointed out that current law provides that the prisoners pay for the time served if they have the ability to do so. MS. HENSLEY agreed, stating that they pay $60 a day or up to $1,000. Number 420 SENATOR HALFORD questioned if there was a significant difference in a felony with a 360-day sentence versus a 366-day sentence, because he thinks there are provisions in federal law and state law that deal with a felony for which the term of imprisonment exceeds one year. SENATOR TAYLOR agreed that the normal definition of a "felony" is a sentence carrying more than one year. SENATOR HALFORD suggested making it one year instead of 360 days. Number 475 SENATOR DONLEY thought the confiscation of vehicles that are used in the commission of the crime would be the single most effective thing that could be done, even more than locking the offender up. SENATOR TAYLOR asked Margo Knuth of the Department of Law to work with the drafter of the legislation to see if there was a possible way to provide for a forfeiture the court can order without having to go through a rather involved process. MARGO KNUTH agreed to do so, but thinks that there may be constitutional problems. SENATOR HALFORD agreed something needs to be done that hits the vehicle and scares the financial institutions away from insuring and financing cars for DWIs, as well people from loaning their cars to somebody that they know has a DWI. He said economic enforcement has more impact that social enforcement. Number 530 There was some discussion on the delay in the system of offenders going to court and serving their time, etc., and the majority of the people who are driving without a license are people who lost their licenses because of DWIs. MR. SWACKHAMMER agreed, and he pointed out that there are so many driving with license suspended offenses that the system just won't accommodate it. When looking at the problem from a statewide perspective and when looking at the numbers, whether it is the district attorney's office, the courts, or the Department of Corrections, the system just can't handle the load. In terms of priorities of types of criminal cases that are going through, these offenses have taken a back seat. MS. HENSLEY added that there is in excess of 5,500 DWIs a year in Alaska. TAPE 94-27, SIDE A Number 010 MR. SWACKHAMMER discussed the mandatory drug and alcohol testing on drivers causing accidents and the problems the arresting officer has in detecting the use of drugs at the scene of the accident. SENATOR DONLEY thought there should be a legal standard somewhere between "probable cause" and "no cause" that is the ability of the arresting officer to articulate a reasonable suspicion. Number 050 SENATOR TAYLOR stated SB 279 would be held over until the next meeting to look at a possible forfeiture provision. Number 095 JUD - 3/28/94 SENATOR TAYLOR brought CSHB 254(JUD) am(ct rule fld) (OPEN MEETING G ACT) before the committee as the final order of business. SENATOR LITTLE said at the last meeting on the bill, some of the members had concern with community councils. As a result, a new committee substitute was drafted and on page 5, lines 18 through 23, an exception for community councils has been included. Number 125 SENATOR TAYLOR said his only concern is that at what point in time is a determination made that the group has gathered for the purpose of adopting a recommendation. His concern is the notification requirements and when does this trigger. SENATOR LITTLE responded that all community councils are currently advertising there meetings. She said this language was added so that members of the community council could get together for a block party without violating the Open Meetings Act, and all of the other times when they would be making decisions for the community council, they would need to meet under the Open Meetings Act. She added that these councils only make recommendations, and when dealing with a body that only recommends, there is little impact to the main body who accepts that recommendation. She didn't see that any great harm could be developed from a suit against an advisory group. SENATOR TAYLOR responded that it would be against the assembly for having taking the recommendation and acting upon it. Number 190 TAM COOK, Director, Division of Legal Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, observed that she was sure that the action of an assembly would be voided, assuming that the assembly action was properly noticed, etc. She thought it would be quite a stretch for the court to be willing to go that far. She also observed that when dealing with a large group of people who are participating in a council meeting, it will incumbent upon whoever is chairing that meeting to remind the member with the idea about a recommendation that they want to bring forward of the requirement of the Open Meetings Act, and that if the council has not complied with it, they'll need to schedule another meeting before they take action on that recommendation. Ms. Cook said that, essentially, this approach gives some leeway to public councils in that there is a number of members test or any other definition of what constitutes a gathering. The test is are they attempting to take action. Number 231 SENATOR DONLEY said there was discussion at the last meeting on advisory groups and breaking out the requirements for them, but not necessarily holding them to the same standards of not talking to each other, and he asked it that was covered in the committee substitute. SENATOR LITTLE responded that they would be covered under the new definition of a meeting. MS. COOK agreed that the advisory groups would be covered, and they would be held to same level of the test of what is a meeting, except for the narrow exception in the committee substitute that applies to community council situations. The test for a community council is that it is must be a group with an indefinite membership. She suggested if the committee so desired, it could take the same approach with all advisory groups, not just community councils. Number 283 SENATOR TAYLOR spoke to his concerns on applying the Open Meetings Act to the subcommittee level when all that is really wanted is that public meetings, where there is going to be some action taken, be held in public. He cautioned that with the way the legislation was going, it may be doing more damage than good. SENATOR LITTLE commented that she believes that the existing law has already broken down, and she strongly feels that there needs to be something put in place to take its place. Number 350 SENATOR HALFORD asked how the members would feel about an amendment to exempt the Open Meetings Act from the general severability of Alaska Statutes. He said that means it either works or it doesn't, and it can't be picked apart by court action. If a court is going to decide that the Open Meetings Act is wrong in any way, it is all or nothing. He is concerned that the Legislature is tinkering in response to the court's tinkering, yet the Legislature has no idea of what the court's interpretation of the final product is going to be. SENATOR TAYLOR stated he didn't think he would have a great deal of objection to that approach, but he was not certain it could done. SENATOR DONLEY thought the community council was alright, but he does not want to go that far with advisory committees. His problem is with getting to the point where non officials are not allowed to talk about something among themselves in their community. Number 400 SENATOR HALFORD said he thought the two categories are: what kind of notice do you provide; and what kind of restrictions on communication do you have. The notice provisions on meetings should apply to virtually everybody and any thing that has got to do with government. The restrictions on communication should not apply to people that don't stand for election, don't get any compensation, and don't have significant power. In response to Senator Halford, TAM COOK suggested keeping the two tiers for the definition of "meeting" as contained in the committee substitute, but apply the first tier only to groups that are not advisory in nature; keep the second test for citizen groups whereby they have to notice their meeting only if they take action; and set up a third tier for advisory groups that is somewhat in the middle that requires them to notice a meeting at any time that they take action, but also pick up the notion of a prearranged meeting as being separate from a casual encounter, so that the notice requirement for all their meetings applies to prearranged meetings and gatherings at which action is taken. She said if the committee wants to make these kind of fine distinctions, she was sure she could draft it. Number 465 After further discussion, SENATOR LITTLE moved a conceptual amendment to create a three-tierd system as proposed by Tam Cook. SENATOR TAYLOR objected for discussion purposes, stating he would rather have less tiers than more tiers. He suggested taking out the recommendation language (beginning on line 9, after the second "or") altogether. SENATOR HALFORD agreed that it was simpler to take out the advisory questions, and if that can't be done, then go to a tier concept. TAME COOK said if the desire is to remove from application of the Open Meetings Act all advisory groups, including subcommittees, she thought it would be necessary in the definition to affirmatively say so. But she cautioned that by leaving the language "with authority to establish policies or make decisions" and being silent about how that is to be applied to an advisory group, then the court will decide that as to an advisory group, their decision is the advice they are going to make and they may inadvertently scoop these groups back into the statute. The result is that it confines the application of the open meetings statute only to groups that have the ability to make some sort of binding decision in government. It removes from application of the open meetings statute a great many groups that are undoubtedly now included, she stated. Number 540 SENATOR TAYLOR called for a roll call vote on Senator Little's conceptual amendment. Senators Little and Donley voted "Yea" and Senators Taylor, Halford and Jacko voted "Nay." The conceptual amendment failed. Number 550 SENATOR TAYLOR moved that on page 5, beginning on line 9, after the word "entity" delete the language "or to make recommendations directly to a mayor or manager of a municipality, a superintendent of a school district, or another governmental body authorized to take action on the matter that is the subject of the recommendations;". On line 12 following "governmental body" rewrite the rest of the sentence so that it specifically deletes subcommittees or those who would make recommendations. He further moved to delete the language on page 5, beginning on line 18 after the word "collectively" down through line 23 ending with the word "entity." SENATOR LITTLE objected. The roll was taken with the following result: Senators Taylor, Halford, Jacko voted "Yea" and Senators Donley and Little voted "Nay." The Chairman stated the amendment was adopted. Number 575 SENATOR TAYLOR noted a former legislator had forwarded recommendations to the committee concerning the application of the law to the Legislature. In his recommendations he suggests that the word "formal" before the word "gathering" under the definition of "meeting," the concept being that there needs to be some triggering mechanism where it moves from the discussion phase to the decisional phase. However, Senator Taylor thought some other word was needed. TAPE 94-26, SIDE A Number 012 SENATOR LITTLE stated she would prefer that language such as a formal gathering not be added, because she doesn't think it accomplishes anything. She said she didn't understand the concern that someone is trying to address by adding it. Number 030 SENATOR DONLEY asked how this would work with caucuses. SENATOR LITTLE responded that the Ethics Committee has been charged with applying the Open Meetings Act to the Legislature, so it would be up to that committee as to how this law is applied to the legislative branch. SENATOR TAYLOR said by turning this whole process lose with a group of people that have never been the majority with a group of people who have never served in the Legislature or understand how it works, he didn't think it would end up with anything that would be workable. Further, he thinks most of the assemblies and councils are having a very difficult time trying to comply right now with the Act, and providing that three members can at least talk with one another gives them a little bit of relief. But when dealing with 60 members of the Legislature, these numbers don't work anymore. SENATOR LITTLE responded that is why it makes sense to work hard with the Ethics Committee in coming up with something that will serve everyone well. Number 060 SENATOR TAYLOR stated he didn't feel it was appropriate to move the bill from committee until such time as the committee has given some rather strong direction to the Ethics Committee on how it believes it should apply. Number 070 JOHN MCKAY, testifying from Anchorage, reminded the committee that the statute that gives the Ethics Committee the opportunity to set some standards for the Legislature specifically creates a couple of things that look at the special nature of the Legislature. It provides that whatever guidelines that they come up with have to allow closed caucuses and private informal meetings or conversations between legislators when a political strategy is discussed. Mr. McKay said that all of the people who have been involved in this process, from the municipal league people, the school board people, the press organizations, to the League of Voters have all said that the legislation in front of the committee works to balance the interests of the municipal officials, public officials and the public. Number 120 SENATOR TAYLOR thanked Mr. McKay for his comments. He stated the bill was not ready to be moved out of committee and he hoped it would be in the near future. There being no further business to come before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 4:10 p.m.