ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
January 31, 2022
1:32 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Roger Holland, Chair
Senator Mike Shower, Vice Chair
Senator Shelley Hughes
Senator Robert Myers
Senator Jesse Kiehl
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 19
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to an appropriation limit.
- MOVED CSSJR 19(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 155
"An Act relating to court-appointed visitors and experts;
relating to the powers and duties of the office of public
advocacy; relating to the powers and duties of the Alaska Court
System; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 119
"An Act relating to oaths of office; and requiring public
officers to read the state constitution, the Declaration of
Independence, and the United States Constitution."
- HEARD & HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 129
"An Act relating to information on judicial officers provided in
election pamphlets."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SJR 19
SHORT TITLE: CONST. AM: APPROP LIMIT
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) MYERS
01/18/22 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/7/22
01/18/22 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/22 (S) JUD, FIN
01/28/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
01/28/22 (S) Heard & Held
01/28/22 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
01/31/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: HB 155
SHORT TITLE: COURT SYSTEM PROVIDE VISITORS & EXPERTS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) TUCK
03/29/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/29/21 (H) JUD, FIN
04/05/21 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/05/21 (H) Heard & Held
04/05/21 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/07/21 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/07/21 (H) Moved HB 155 Out of Committee
04/07/21 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/09/21 (H) JUD RPT 4DP 3NR
04/09/21 (H) DP: KREISS-TOMKINS, DRUMMOND, SNYDER,
CLAMAN
04/09/21 (H) NR: EASTMAN, VANCE, KURKA
05/05/21 (H) FIN AT 9:00 AM ADAMS 519
05/05/21 (H) Heard & Held
05/05/21 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
05/06/21 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM ADAMS 519
05/06/21 (H) Moved HB 155 Out of Committee
05/06/21 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
05/07/21 (H) FIN RPT 7DP 2NR
05/07/21 (H) DP: ORTIZ, EDGMON, LEBON, THOMPSON,
WOOL, JOSEPHSON, MERRICK
05/07/21 (H) NR: CARPENTER, RASMUSSEN
05/13/21 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
05/13/21 (H) VERSION: HB 155
05/14/21 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/14/21 (S) JUD, FIN
01/28/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
01/28/22 (S) Scheduled but Not Heard
01/31/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 119
SHORT TITLE: OATH OF OFFICE
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) REINBOLD
04/07/21 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/07/21 (S) EDC, JUD, STA, FIN
04/23/21 (S) EDC AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
04/23/21 (S) Heard & Held
04/23/21 (S) MINUTE(EDC)
04/28/21 (S) EDC AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
04/28/21 (S) Moved CSSB 119(EDC) Out of Committee
04/28/21 (S) MINUTE(EDC)
04/30/21 (S) EDC RPT CS 4DP 1NR SAME TITLE
04/30/21 (S) DP: HOLLAND, HUGHES, STEVENS, MICCICHE
04/30/21 (S) NR: BEGICH
04/30/21 (S) FIN REFERRAL REMOVED
04/30/21 (S) CRA REFERRAL ADDED AFTER EDC
05/11/21 (S) CRA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
05/11/21 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
05/13/21 (S) CRA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
05/13/21 (S) Moved CSSB 119(EDC) Out of Committee
05/13/21 (S) MINUTE(CRA)
05/14/21 (S) CRA RPT 1DP 1DNP 2NR
05/14/21 (S) DP: HUGHES
05/14/21 (S) DNP: GRAY-JACKSON
05/14/21 (S) NR: MYERS, WILSON
01/31/22 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
EDWARD MARTIN, representing self
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified with concerns on SJR 19.
ED KING, Staff
Senator Roger Holland
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SJR 19 on behalf of Senator
Holland.
MIKE COONS, representing self
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 19 because he
prefers the governor's spending limit.
REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS TUCK
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 155.
MICHAEL MASON, Staff
Representative Chris Tuck
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the sectional analysis for HB 155
on behalf of the sponsor of HB 155.
DOUG WOOLIVER, Deputy Admin Director;
Office of the Administrative Director
Alaska Court System
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony in support of HB
155 on behalf of the court system.
JAMES STINSON, Director
Office of Public Advocacy
Department of Administration
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony on HB 155.
SENATOR LORA REINBOLD
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 119.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:32:59 PM
CHAIR ROGER HOLLAND called the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:32 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Shower, Hughes, Myers, Kiehl, and Chair
Holland.
SJR 19-CONST. AM: APPROP LIMIT
1:33:39 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND announced the consideration of SENATE JOINT
RESOLUTION NO. 19, Proposing amendments to the Constitution of
the State of Alaska relating to an appropriation limit.
CHAIR HOLLAND reminded members that the committee worked
extensively on Senate Joint Resolution 301 during the third
special session. The committee substitute (CS) language for
Senate Joint Resolution 301 was incorporated into SJR 19.
[The committee held its first hearing on SJR 19 on 1/28/2022.]
1:34:22 PM
SENATOR SHOWER commented that the committee discussed [Senate
Joint Resolution 301] last year. He asked for a summary of how
the trailing average works and what indicators drive the change
in the spending cap.
1:35:18 PM
SENATOR MYERS, speaking as sponsor, responded that SJR 19 uses a
five-year rolling average for the personal income index for
several reasons. First, he offered his view that this would
provide more stability. Second, if the state experienced a
recession, it would need to ramp up unemployment insurance and
several other things to create a smoothing effect. This means
the economy can drop slightly while the rolling average is still
increasing. The state would not cut off state spending
immediately when it is needed. The state would need to reduce
its spending, but using personal income provides a little
flexibility at the beginning. He offered that this provides some
incentive for the state to pay attention to the private sector
and help get the economy back up and running if the state
experiences a recession.
1:36:51 PM
SENATOR SHOWER related his understanding that the spending cap
could drive spending down. He asked for the curve's starting
point and if it would be based on the current budget and trend
upward.
SENATOR MYERS answered that the spending cap would put downward
pressure on the budget if the state experienced a recession. The
concept of a spending cap is not only to cap spending but to tie
it to the performance of the state's economy as a whole. Second,
one benefit of the spending cap is the structure in SJR 19.
Previous spending caps were based on current spending and
indexed by inflation, population, or both. This creates some
significant problems because it is not necessarily tied to
current events, including state spending and the economy. He
acknowledged that inflation is always an issue, but it is a
driver based on events happening outside of Alaska. He said that
the population largely follows the economy. If the economy is
doing great, more people will come to Alaska, but the population
tends to diminish if the economy is tanking. He offered his view
that using personal income as the statistic would provide a
better tracking overall.
1:39:28 PM
SENATOR KIEHL moved to adopt Amendment 1, work order 32-
LS1353\A.1.
32-LS1353\A.1
Marx
1/27/22
AMENDMENT 1
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR KIEHL
Page 2, line 4:
Delete "fourteen"
Insert "fourteen and one-half"
Page 2, line 8:
Delete "fourteen"
Insert "fourteen and one-half"
SENATOR HUGHES objected for discussion purposes.
1:39:46 PM
SENATOR KIEHL explained Amendment 1. He said he discussed SJR 19
with Legislative Finance and Ed King, an economist and committee
staff. It appears a slight upward adjustment to the cap is
necessary to achieve the additional headroom the committee
discussed last fall. He recalled the committee had discussed 14
percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), leaving $600 million of
headroom. He referred to charts the committee reviewed at its
last meeting on January 28, 2022. He recalled that the spending
cap based on personal income would provide $100 million in the
current fiscal year and approximately $400 million in the next
fiscal year. He stated that raising the percentage to 14.5
percent would achieve the level of headroom the committee
discussed when it moved Senate Joint Resolution 301 from the
committee.
1:41:30 PM
SENATOR HUGHES referred to slide 1, Current Constitutional
Appropriation Limit (Article IX, Section 16) and Appropriations
Subject to the Limit. She directed attention to the graph on the
lower side of the slide. She said it appears as though the blue
line shows the state had $100 to $200 million of headroom during
the state's highest years of spending [in FY 2009, FY 2012, FY
2013, and FY 2014]. She asked if the light blue line would move
slightly upward if the spending cap was based on 14.5 percent
instead of 14 percent.
1:42:23 PM
SENATOR KIEHL responded that he thought it was the current
status quo spending limit as shown by the dark blue line.
1:42:32 PM
SENATOR MYERS agreed. The graph reflects the current spending
cap established in the early 1980s. He said that the large gap
illustrates that the existing spending cap is ineffective. It
did not curb spending beginning the year after it was adopted.
It potentially could have applied in the last boom in FY 2007 or
FY 2012, but the state is nowhere near that right now.
1:43:31 PM
SENATOR HUGHES asked for confirmation that using either 14
percent or 14.5 percent of the five-year rolling average of the
value of personal income of Alaska residents would mean the
constitutional spending limit would be below the high peaks
shown on the lower chart.
SENATOR MYERS directed attention to slide 2, to the bar chart
shown in orange, Proposed Constitutional Appropriations Limits
Based on State Private Personal Income. The bars representing
state spending in FY 2009 and FY 2013 would be significantly
above the proposed spending cap in SJR 19.
1:44:08 PM
SENATOR SHOWER asked for confirmation that the chart on slide 2,
Proposed Constitutional Appropriations Limits Based on State
Private Personal Income means that the state could have saved a
significant portion of the funds. He acknowledged that some of
the spending was for capital budgets. He recalled Mr. King
briefed members that the permanent fund would be $115 to $130
billion if not spent. He asked if this would create a true
downward pressure. He asked how the constitutional spending
limit of 14.5 percent would affect the chart. He wondered if the
spending limit would be about 20 percent.
1:45:38 PM
SENATOR KIEHL answered that it is difficult to predict what
prior legislatures would have done since legislators could have
increased the balances in the permanent fund, constitutional
budget reserve (CBR), or statutory budget reserve (SBR). The
referenced chart with orange bars and the blue line indicates
that it would have resulted in less spending. He said the
spending limit based on the 1980s era percentage of personal
income was about $10 billion. He estimated ballpark figures of
25 percent.
1:46:40 PM
SENATOR MYERS said he believed Senator Kiehl was correct. He
said the current spending cap was 23 percent of GDP.
1:47:27 PM
At ease
1:48:06 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND reconvened the meeting.
1:48:13 PM
SENATOR HUGHES stated that using the appropriation for this
budget, there would be about $500 million headroom at 14
percent.
SENATOR MYERS answered that using the governor's budget for FY
2023, SJR 19 at 14 percent, would provide $467 million headroom.
1:49:01 PM
SENATOR SHOWER responded that he did not mind providing some
wiggle room. He acknowledged that it was pertinent for the next
committee of referral. He said he agreed, but he was concerned
about raising the percentage.
1:49:58 PM
SENATOR HUGHES said she realized that this would provide $500
million in headroom, so she is comfortable using a spending cap
based on 14 percent.
1:50:40 PM
SENATOR KIEHL explained the underlying constitutional language
provides the absolute hard ceiling. He spoke in favor of giving
a little more flexibility to the spending limit.
1:51:22 PM
SENATOR HUGHES maintained her objection.
1:51:27 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Senator Kiehl, Myers, and Holland
voted in favor of Amendment 1 and Senators Shower and Hughes
voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 1 was adopted by 3:2
vote.
1:52:01 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND opened public testimony on SJR 19.
1:52:37 PM
EDWARD MARTIN, JR. representing self, Kenai, Alaska, stated that
SJR 19 was an interesting resolution. He said he thought that as
an American, he was secure in his person, paper and effects. He
expressed concern that using personal income would not be
available since Alaska does not have a personal income tax. He
asked whether the state would use the federal tax rolls to spy
on Alaskans. He suggested it might be intrusive.
MR. MARTIN said he appreciated the sponsor's concern about
government spending. He shared his viewpoint on another bill,
not before the committee and the need to cut government
spending.
CHAIR HOLLAND asked testifiers to speak to the bill before the
committee. He asked his staff to provide insight to address Mr.
Martin's concerns.
1:56:39 PM
ED KING, Staff, Senator Roger Holland, Alaska State Legislature,
Juneau, Alaska, stated that the US Bureau of Economic Analysis
publishes federal metrics and those metrics were used to
generate the charts. The IRS provides federal data that is
available for states, even those without a personal income tax.
1:57:23 PM
MIKE COONS, representing self, Palmer, Alaska, (via
teleconference) said the sponsor mentioned the five-year rolling
average in terms of a recession. He said that going back to the
governor's proposal of 2.5 with a 10 percent cap would provide
more money to address a recession. He highlighted that the real
function of government is not to provide social welfare. He
offered his view that the SJR 19 language would confuse voters.
He surmised they would vote no. He favored the governor's
amendment with a 2.5 percent cap. He said he does not support
SJR 19.
1:59:47 PM
SENATOR HUGHES asked Mr. Coons to repeat his last sentence.
MR. COONS stated that he would like a clearcut 2.5 percent
spending cap and that the legislature should let the voters
decide. He does not support SJR 19, but he supports the
governor's proposed constitutional spending cap.
2:00:23 PM
SENATOR MYERS stated he was unsure whether he understood his
point. The committee previously reviewed the governor's proposed
constitutional amendment, and it did not use a percentage, so he
was uncertain about the reference to the 2.5 percent cap.
MR. COONS responded that was his understanding of the governor's
spending cap.
2:01:08 PM
SENATOR HUGHES clarified for the public that comparing the two
constitutional amendments was not comparing 2.5 percent to 14 or
14.5 percent of growth.
2:01:56 PM
SENATOR MYERS summarized the governor's constitutional amendment
[SJR 5] for a spending cap to SJR 19. The governor took the
current spending and indexed it to inflation and population
growth. As inflation and population grows, the legislature's
amount to spend would increase.
SENATOR MYERS explained that SJR 19 proposes a different
mechanism. Rather than taking current spending, the spending
should reflect the economy. The 14 percent spending limit is not
a measure of growth but how much of the economy comes from the
government. Thus, if the economy shrinks, the budget will
shrink; if the economy grows, the government will grow. As he
mentioned when he presented SJR 19, one would expect the
government to grow as the economy grows. He emphasized that
while the goal is to limit spending and excess, the mechanism
used in the two proposals is very different.
2:03:23 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND summarized that under SJR 19, as the economy
shrinks, there would be downward pressure to shrink state
spending. As the economy grows, there would be more
opportunities for state spending to increase. However, it would
do so by increasing the cap.
SENATOR MYERS answered that he was correct.
2:03:40 PM
SENATOR HUGHES related a scenario where the economy could
shrink, the population could grow, and inflation could rise. The
legislature would like to avoid the predicament where it cannot
afford government spending. She said she believed that tying it
to the economy would be better than using population and
inflation factors.
2:04:10 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND closed public testimony on SJR 19.
2:04:23 PM
SENATOR MYERS made closing remarks. The point of a spending cap
is not to put downward pressure on the legislature during a
spending crisis but to limit growth and excess spending. The
legislature has discovered it is effortless to increase
expenditures but challenging to reduce them. It's better to keep
spending from going up in the first place. Last year, he did the
math when he introduced the resolution for a spending cap using
GDP. Even without addressing inflation or investment, the state
would have an extra $15 billion in the bank. He surmised that
economic modeling using personal income, as SJR 19 does, would
likely be similar. A significant part of the fiscal solution is
ensuring that the state does not go on a spending spree again
when revenue increases.
2:05:43 PM
SENATOR SHOWER moved to report SJR 19, work order 32-LS1353\A as
amended, from committee with individual recommendations and
attached fiscal note(s).
CHAIR HOLLAND heard no objection, so SJR 19 was reported from
the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee.
2:06:06 PM
At ease
HB 155-COURT SYSTEM PROVIDE VISITORS & EXPERTS
2:08:15 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND reconvened the meeting and announced the
consideration of HOUSE BILL NO. 155 "An Act relating to court-
appointed visitors and experts; relating to the powers and
duties of the office of public advocacy; relating to the powers
and duties of the Alaska Court System; and providing for an
effective date."
[This is the first hearing on HB 155.]
2:08:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS TUCK, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau,
Alaska, sponsor of HB 155, stated that this bill was a
collaborative effort to fix a flaw in the Court Visitor Program
[also known as court visitors]. It would transfer the office
from the Office of Public Advocacy (OPA) in the executive branch
to the Alaska Court System in the judicial branch. Currently,
court visitors make recommendations on guardianships and
conservatorships. He paraphrased the sponsor statement.
[Original punctuation provided]:
The Court Visitor Program was created to act as an
investigative arm of the Alaska Court System in
certain protective probate proceedings. Court visitors
conduct independent investigations into whether
guardianships or conservatorships are necessary. They
also review each existing guardianship and
conservatorship at least once every three years.
Additionally, court visitors participate in
psychotropic medication proceedings during involuntary
commitments to investigate whether the patient can
give or withhold informed consent. Since 1984, the
court visitor program has been administered by the
Office of Public Advocacy. Unfortunately, there is no
legislative history that clarifies why this judicial
branch program was placed under the direction of an
executive branch office. The only inference that can
be made is that anything having to do with
"guardianships" was placed with OPA because the office
provides public guardians and attorneys for these
proceedings. As the court visitor program has
continued to grow, it has become increasingly unwieldy
because OPA cannot effectively supervise independent
contractors who act as "the eyes and ears" of the
court. There is also duplicity of services between the
executive and judicial branches of government because
the court system independently contracts with and
directly pays for court visitors in conservatorship
proceedings. OPA is only responsible for providing
court visitors in guardianship proceedings. The
differences between how OPA and the Court System
handle these proceedings have caused frustration among
the court visitors who work both types of cases. Both
the Alaska Court System and OPA agree that
transferring the program to the court system is long
overdue and would make the program more efficient. The
transfer would allow the Court System to put in place
standards for reports and who it chooses to use as a
court visitor.
2:12:09 PM
MICHAEL MASON, Staff, Representative Chris Tuck, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, on behalf of the sponsor, presented
the sectional analysis for HB 155.
Section 1 Repeals and reenacts AS 13.26.226 (d) to
read: The Alaska Court System shall provide visitors
and experts in guardianship proceedings under AS
13.26.291. The Alaska Court System may contract for
services of court-appointed visitors and experts.
Section 2 Amends AS 13.26.291 (a) to stipulate that
the Alaska Court System shall bear the costs of the
visitors and experts appointed under AS 13.26.226 (c).
Section 3 Amends AS 44.21.410 (a) to remove
paragraph 2 and renumber the remaining paragraph.
2:13:09 PM
Section 4 Amends AS.21.420 (c) to remove language
allowing the Commissioner of Administration to
contract for services for court visitors and experts
to perform the duties set out in AS 44.21.410.
Section 5 Amends AS 44.21.440 (b) to remove a
reference to court visitors from language prohibiting
the Office of Public Advocacy from using improper
pressure to influence the professional judgment of a
person paid by the office.
Section 6 Amends AS.30.839 (d) to remove language
allowing the court to direct the Office of Public
Advocacy to provide a court visitor to investigate
whether a patient can give or withhold informed
consent in psychotropic medication proceedings during
involuntary commitments.
2:13:58 PM
Section 7 Amends 47.30.839 to add a new subsection
to read: (j) The Alaska Court System shall provide
visitors in proceedings under this section. The Alaska
Court System may contract for services of court-
appointed visitors.
Section 8 Amends the uncodified law of the State of
Alaska to add transition language stipulating that the
act applies to guardianship proceedings under AS
13.26.291 and proceedings under AS.30.839 commenced on
or after the effective date of the act. The section
further amends the uncodified law of the State of
Alaska to ensure that the Office of Public Advocacy
shall provide visitors and experts in guardianship
proceedings and visitors in proceedings under AS
47.30.839 that were commenced before the effective
date of the act.
Section 9 Provides an effective date of July 1,
2021.
2:15:11 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND turned to invited testimony on HB 155.
2:15:41 PM
DOUG WOOLIVER, Deputy Admin Director, Office of the
Administrative Director, Alaska Court System, Anchorage, Alaska,
(via teleconference), stated that the Alaska Court System worked
with the Office of Public Advocacy (OPA) on the bill. The court
system agrees with the proposal in HB 155. For some odd reason,
the Court Visitor Program was housed in OPA. As the numbers of
people who need assistance due to old age will continue to
increase, HB 155 makes sense. This bill will transfer the Court
Visitor Program from OPA to the Alaska Court System. He
characterized HB 155 as a good clean-up bill. He recalled that
this transfer has been discussed for many years, as far back as
then-Governor Frank Murkowski's administration. The court
system, OPA, and court visitors support this change. It is
better for people who work for the Alaska Court System but are
housed in OPA to be under the courts.
2:18:28 PM
JAMES STINSON, Director, Office of Public Advocacy, Department
of Administration, Anchorage, Alaska, (via Teams), echoed Mr.
Wooliver's testimony. He was unsure of the reason this function
was placed the Office of Public Advocacy (OPA) in the first
place, but he surmised that it may have been because it dealt
with guardianships. However, the court visitors act as neutral
observers. One legislative audit recommended the program should
be housed within the court system because it creates the
perception that OPA conducts the work and makes all the
recommendations. In doing so, the court system would have more
control over these important proceedings. The court system will
set standards of practice and requirements for court visitor
reports, which are especially important since these proceedings
substantially restrict a person's financial liberty or impose a
full guardianship. He offered his view that this function is not
something that OPA can manage well, but the court system can. He
emphasized that the state must address the court visitor
function since Alaska's aging demographic will lead to more
guardianship proceedings. If the program remains in OPA, the
agency will need to request more resources. He characterized the
bill as a win-win.
2:22:56 PM
SENATOR MYERS said he noticed the fiscal impact was $100,000 in
additional funding for the court system to take over the
program.
MR. MASON responded that OPA and the court system worked
together on the transition plan. He deferred to Mr. Wooliver.
MR. WOOLIVER answered that if the court visitor program remains
with OPA, that agency would also need an additional person to
manage it because the number of guardianship and
conservatorships has grown and will continue to grow.
2:24:59 PM
SENATOR HUGHES acknowledged the efficiencies that this transfer
would provide. She wondered if there was a check and balance
between the branches. She heard testimony from agencies that
this transfer creates efficiencies, and the court system and OPA
support the proposed change. She asked if AARP and the
Governor's Commission on Aging support HB 155 since the court
visitors serve Alaskans.
2:26:21 PM
MR. STINSON responded that anecdotally the perception is that
OPA has too much influence over the proceedings because the
court documents reflect that the Office of Public Advocacy (OPA)
provides the services. The only complaints he has received
questioned the control OPA might have in the process. The last
legislative audit highlighted that perception. OPA provides the
respondent's counsel so that the attorney might be arguing the
case for someone who does not want a conservatorship or
guardianship. The attorney might say that the party does not
warrant guardianship. Still, OPA also funds the court visitor,
whose recommendation might state that guardianship was
necessary. He noted that the perception of a conflict is in the
status quo. Moving the court visitor function to the court
system helps identify that a court visitor is a neutral person.
SENATOR HUGHES asked to hear support from individual Alaskans or
groups supporting Alaskans for this change. While she is not
opposed to HB 155, she would like that input.
2:28:34 PM
MR. MASON offered to reach out to the Alaska Commission on
Aging. He reported that he did not receive any negative feedback
on the bill. He related that the parties are all in agreement
with this change.
2:29:11 PM
SENATOR SHOWER asked if the legislative oversight of the court
visitors would be budgetary.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK answered yes.
SENATOR SHOWER asked if the court system should house the
guardianship and conservatorship functions or if one function
should stay with OPA.
MR. STINSON answered that the work is essentially the same. He
explained that someone who needs a conservatorship might need
guardianship later. The same court visitors will handle the
cases.
2:30:57 PM
SENATOR SHOWER referred to page 3, Section 5, which read:
(b)The office of public advocacy may not use improper
pressure to influence the professional judgment of a
person who is paid by the office of public advocacy to
act as an attorney or [,] a guardian ad litem [, OR A
VISITOR] for a guardianship or conservatorship
established under AS 13.26.
SENATOR SHOWER acknowledged that this language might be existing
law, but it is still good to review it. He wondered if any
penalties were associated with improper pressure to influence
professional judgment.
MR. STINSON responded that he was unsure. He stated that this
provision would also apply to not exerting influence on guardian
ad litem or attorneys. In those two instances, it is easier
since it is a judicial function. OPA has historically erred on
the side of caution. He surmised that Section 5 brings
heightened attention with that clause. It is easier to
understand the Rules of Conduct for attorneys' duties. OPA
provides administration of a court function, so it does not have
substantial oversight or involvement in what court visitors do.
He said he was unsure of the penalty provisions.
2:32:08 PM
SENATOR SHOWER expressed an interest in the penalty provisions.
He referred to page 4, Section 7, which read:
(j) The Alaska Court System shall provide visitors in
proceedings under this section. The Alaska Court
System may contract for services of court-appointed
visitors.
SENATOR SHOWER wondered if the court system decided it would not
contract for services, would the state pay more to process
additional cases.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK responded that this would be a year-to-year
budget item based on need and demand. He characterized it as a
"gray avalanche" because the aging process translates to people
needing more services. He referred to the fiscal note. Even
without this bill, the state will provide court visitor
services. The court system and OPA currently negotiate this
function. He offered to research the penalty provisions but did
not believe any penalties applied.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK reminded members that the Office of Public
Advocacy (OPA) is by nature, an advocacy group. These statutory
provisions establish limitations for the advocacy group by
outlining what they shall and shall not do. However, it makes
more sense to house court visitors in the court system since
they must be neutral.
2:34:08 PM
SENATOR SHOWER expressed concern that as the need for court
visitors grows, it will impact the state since it would require
additional positions.
2:34:30 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked if the court visitors and experts remain
throughout the conservatorship, guardianship, or time in the
medical system or if the court visitors investigate and make
single reports to the court.
2:35:01 PM
MR. MASON deferred to Mr. Stinson.
2:35:13 PM
MR. STINSON answered that there would be an initial proceeding
followed by a review every three years to determine that the
substantial limitation of liberty was still appropriate. He
stated that a subsequent investigation and report would be
required every three years. Thus, three-year reviews will spike
as the number of total guardianships increases. He explained
that guardianships tend to remain for a person's natural life.
For example, a severely disabled juvenile could become an adult
who might live to be 80-years-old and require full guardianship.
These cases tend to be lengthy, unlike civil or criminal cases
that may be resolved in one or two years when the verdict is
issued.
2:36:20 PM
SENATOR KIEHL referred to the transition section. He asked
whether the three-year reviews were new proceedings or the same
guardianship proceeding throughout the person's natural life.
MR. STINSON answered that it is the same in that it refers to
the same person, and if at all possible, the same court visitor
would conduct the three-year review.
2:37:01 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked for clarity whether the three-year review
remains the same proceeding; if not, the two entities would be
running the program for decades. He estimated that if the three-
year reviews are new proceedings, the transition period would be
limited to three years in which both agencies run a portion of
the program.
2:37:29 PM
MR. STINSON explained the transition provision. OPA and the
court system have agreed that OPA would pay for the services
provided prior to the effective date. The rest of the costs
would be passed on to the court system. He clarified that there
are no in-house position control numbers (PCNs) that provide
these services. The court visitors are all independent
contractors. The funding that is transferred to the court system
from OPA pays for independent contractors. He explained that the
transition would work such that OPA would stop paying on the
effective date of the bill, and the court system would begin
paying for the services. He stated that OPA does not administer
the proceedings since independent court visitors provide the
investigation and report to the court. The transition refers to
the date for the transfer of responsibility.
SENATOR KIEHL offered to follow up with the sponsor to ensure
that the transition language in Section 8 matches with the
intent.
2:38:50 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND held HB 155 in committee.
2:38:53 PM
At ease
2:40:08 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND stated that the committee would not take up SB
129.
SB 119-OATH OF OFFICE
2:40:29 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 119
"An Act relating to oaths of office; and requiring public
officers to read the state constitution, the Declaration of
Independence, and the United States Constitution."
[CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 119(EDC) was before the committee.]
2:41:01 PM
SENATOR LORA REINBOLD, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska,
paraphrased the sponsor statement for SB 119.
[Original punctuation provided]
This bill requires all those whose are statutorily or
constitutionally required to take an oath in the State
of Alaska to read: the Declaration of Independence,
the United States Constitution and The Constitution of
the State of Alaska. Following the reading of the
documents, a signed statement acknowledging the action
will be filed at the Alaska State Libraries, Archives
and Museums directly after taking the Oath of office.
2:42:28 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD paraphrased the sectional analysis for SB 119:
[Original punctuation provided]:
Sectional Analysis for CS SB 119 32-LS0163\G
Section 1. AS 14.12.090 is amended to include every
school board member before taking office shall read
the Constitution of the State of Alaska, the
Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution of
the United States, and take and sign an oath of
affirmation.
Section 2. AS 18.65.010 (c) is amended to include
every person appointed shall, after reading the
Constitution of the State of Alaska, the Declaration
of Independence, and the Constitution of the United
States, take the constitutional oath of office.
2:42:55 PM
Section 3. AS 22.05.090 is amended to include each
supreme court justice upon entering office shall,
after reading the Constitution of the State of Alaska,
the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution
of the United States, take and subscribe to an oath of
office required by all officers and any further oath
or affirmation that may be prescribed by law.
Section 4. AS 22.07.050 is amended to include each
judge of the court of appeals, upon entering office
shall, after reading the Constitution of the State of
Alaska, the Declaration of Independence, and the
Constitution of the United States, take and subscribe
to the oath or affirmation of office required of all
officers under the constitution.
Section 5. AS 22.10.110 is amended to include each
superior court judge upon entering office, shall,
after reading the Constitution of the State of Alaska,
the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution
of the United States, take and subscribe to an oath of
office required of all officers under the constitution
and any further oath or affirmation as may be
prescribed by law.
2:43:14 PM
Section 6. AS 22.15.180 is amended to include each
district judge and magistrate, upon entering office,
shall, after reading the Constitution of the State of
Alaska, the Declaration of Independence, and the
Constitution of the United States take and subscribe
to an oath of office required of all officers under
the constitution and any further oath or affirmation
that may be prescribed by law.
2:43:22 PM
Section 7. AS 24.05.060 is amended to include each
member of the legislature, before entering upon the
duties of office, shall, after reading the
Constitution of the State of Alaska, the Declaration
of Independence, and the Constitution of the United
States take the oath of office prescribed in Art. XII
Sec. 5, Constitution of the State of Alaska, and such
further oath or affirmation prescribed by law for
members of the legislature or other officers of the
state.
Section 8. AS 29.20.600 is amended to include
Municipal officials shall, after reading the
Constitution of the State of Alaska, the Declaration
of Independence, and the Constitution of the United
States, affirm in writing that the duties of the
office will be honestly, faithfully, and impartially
performed by the official. The oath is filed with the
municipal clerk.
Section 9. AS 39.05.040 is amended to include the
principal executive officer of each department and the
member of each board within the state government
shall, after reading the Constitution of the State of
Alaska, the Declaration of Independence, and the
Constitution of the United States, take, sign, and
file the oath of office required by the constitution
before entering upon the duties of office.
2:43:44 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD commented that these people are already
required to do this. She brought forward the bill because
there were inconsistencies between the three branches of
government. This would provide a consistent, uniform
process.
Section 10. AS 39.05.045 is amended to include a
public officer or employee of the state, before
entering upon the duties of office shall read the
Constitution of the State of Alaska, the Declaration
of Independence, and the Constitution of the United
States and take and sign the following oath or
affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I
will support and defend the Constitution of the United
States and the Constitution of the State of Alaska,
and that I will faithfully discharge my duties as ??
to the best of my ability."
2:44:14 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked why the bill requires officials to read the
Declaration of Independence when the oath of office is not
required to uphold it.
SENATOR REINBOLD responded that the executive branch has been
writing mandates. Still, the legislative branch is the branch
that writes the laws, the executive branch carries out the laws,
and the judicial branch resolves disputes. She stated that
reading the Declaration of Independence shows the grievances
people had. She noted that reading the Declaration of
Independence and the US Constitution was crucial.
2:45:40 PM
SENATOR KIEHL said the more thorough exploration of the
relationship between the three branches of government is found
in the Federalist Papers. He said he read them in high school
and college. He asked why the bill does not require reading the
Federalist Papers.
SENATOR REINBOLD answered that she would not object to adding it
to the bill.
2:47:09 PM
SENATOR MYERS asked what problem SB 119 was trying to solve.
SENATOR REINBOLD responded that she would love to see students
reading these documents. She expressed concern that important
things were happening in this country. She stated that the US
Constitution is the supreme law of the land. She said that
people get caught up in guidelines and statutes, so she
advocates reading the source documents as a refresher, keeping
officials focused on their responsibilities.
2:48:26 PM
SENATOR MYERS pointed out that at least three schools of
interpretation of the US Constitution exist. He wondered if the
issue was related to knowledge or the interpretation of the
documents.
SENATOR REINBOLD offered her view that people do not need to
interpret the US Constitution since its purpose was to constrain
government and set out individual rights. She paraphrased the US
Constitution, Article 1, Sections 2 and 4, Declaration of
Rights, which read:
Section 2. Source of Government
All political power is inherent in the people. All
government originates with the people, is founded upon
their will only, and is instituted solely for the good
of the people as a whole.
Section 4. Freedom of Religion
No law shall be made respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
SENATOR REINBOLD said it was written for all people to read and
appreciate, so it does not need to be interpreted. She related
her own practices of reading the documents listed in the bill.
2:50:18 PM
SENATOR SHOWER remarked that he wished these documents were
required in social studies. He emphasized the importance of
learning the basis for the US government. For example, people
refer to the US as a democracy, but it is a representative
republic. He related documents he had read. He asked if the
courts would challenge SB 119 based on personal freedom. He
stated it is sometimes tenuous to tell someone they must do
something.
2:52:10 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD responded that judges, magistrates,
commissioners all must take an oath, but there was inconsistency
within the statutes. She remarked that she could not imagine
people have not read them since they must take an oath to uphold
them. She did not see it as an infringement.
2:53:07 PM
SENATOR SHOWER commented that he wasn't speaking against the
bill. He related that he researched what other states required,
and he found requirements varied and were more stringent.
2:53:59 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD said she read the documents in high school and
college but finds it meaningful to re-read them. She recalled
hearing some candidates indicate they needed to re-read them.
She felt certain that some candidates have not read these
documents since high school. She recalled that the Senate
Education Standing Committee added school board members to the
list of people required to read the documents listed in the
bill. She asked if the sponsor would consider adding assembly
members and community council members to the bill. She was
unsure whether other documents should be added. She remarked
that the Federalist Papers were about 250 to 300 pages in length
and the Anti-Federalist Papers consisted of 85 essays. She
expressed concern about the length of the documents but would be
open to it if there were Cliff Notes.
2:55:37 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD offered her belief that assembly members,
community council members, and school board members were
included under municipal officials.
CHAIR HOLLAND asked if she was speaking about the school board
and assembly members.
SENATOR REINBOLD answered yes. She recalled that the Senate
Education Committee adopted an amendment to add school board and
assembly members.
CHAIR HOLLAND reminded members this was just the first hearing
for the bill so the committee could address it later.
2:56:17 PM
SENATOR HUGHES asked if they were covered in Section 9.
SENATOR SHOWER referred to Section 10.
SENATOR HUGHES noted she was missing Section 10.
2:56:35 PM
SENATOR KIEHL stated that Section 1 covers school board members
and Section 8 relates to council and assembly members in Title
29. He said the bill requires filing the oaths of office. He
asked for consequences if a person does not do the required
reading, such that it would disqualify them from holding the
office.
SENATOR REINBOLD answered that this is on the honor system.
People read an oath and sign that they have read it. The purpose
of the filing is to hold them accountable.
2:58:06 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD summarized that the people signing an oath of
office should read the three documents.
2:58:23 PM
CHAIR HOLLAND held SB 119 in committee.
2:58:36 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Holland adjourned the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting at 2:58 p.m.