SENATE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE March 6, 1997 1:33 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Senator Jerry Ward, Chairman Senator Gary Wilken, Vice Chairman Senator Lyda Green Senator Rick Halford Senator Georgianna Lincoln MEMBERS ABSENT All members present. OTHER MEMBERS PRESENT Senator Robin Taylor COMMITTEE CALENDAR SENATE BILL NO. 21 "An Act relating to ferries and ferry terminals, establishing the Alaska Marine Highway Authority, and relating to maintenance of state marine vessels; and providing for an effective date." - MOVED CSSB 21(TRA) OUT OF COMMITTEE Confirmation Hearings for the Alaska Board of Marine Pilots: Bernie Smith, David Stewart, Barbara Huff Tuckness PREVIOUS SENATE ACTION SB 21 - See Senate Transportation Committee minutes dated 2/18/97. WITNESS REGISTER Joe Perkins, Commissioner Department of Transportation & Public Facilities 3132 Channel Drive Juneau, Alaska 99801-7898 POSITION STATEMENT: Stated that SB 21 moves in the wrong direction. Mike McMullen, Personnel Manager Division of Personnel Department of Administration PO Box 110201 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0201 POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed collective bargaining. Doug Ward, Project Manager Alaska Ship & Dry Dock Ketchikan, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed Amendment 1. Joe Ambrose, Staff Senator Taylor State Capitol Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182 POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions. Barbara Huff Tuckness 1912 Parkview Anchorage, Alaska 99501 POSITION STATEMENT: Appointee for the Board of Marine Pilots. David Stewart 500 L Street, Suite 401 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 POSITION STATEMENT: Appointee for the Board of Marine Pilots. Bernie Smith Tesoro Alaska Petroleum Company PO Box 196272 Anchorage, Alaska 99519 POSITION STATEMENT: Appointee for the Board of Marine Pilots. ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 97-6, SIDE A SB 21 ALASKA MARINE HIGHWAY AUTHORITY  Number 001 CHAIRMAN WARD called the Senate Transportation Committee meeting to order at 1:33 p.m. and introduced SB 21 as the first order of business before the committee. COMMISSIONER JOE PERKINS , Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, read the following statements into the record: I. THE AUTHORITY CREATES MORE PROBLEMS THAN IT SOLVES. A. SB 21 DIMINISHES PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY. Under the present system, the Marine Highway System management is accountable to the public. Concerns and requests are responded to, quickly and completely. They have to be. Elected officials are responsible for the management of the marine highway, and elected official have to be responsive to the public they serve. The establishment of an authority will diminish the public accountability of marine highway management by inserting an appointed board between management and the people. Marine highway management will no longer work directly for the elected governor or for any other elected representative. Management decisions will be made by the board, and not the governor nor the legislature. Once appointed, board members will not be accountable to the public. A board member may be removed only for cause. The accountability of marine highway management to the communities they serve will be substantially reduced. We believe this not desirable. B. SB 21 LESSENS PUBLIC INFLUENCE ON DECISION MAKING. Alaskan's now know who is in charge of the Marine Highway System. When things are running well, they know who to compliment. When things aren't going so well, they know who to blame. This bill will change all of that. When accountability of elected officials changes, public access to the decision making process also changes. Although a person or community may still ask the executive director or board of directors of the system for a schedule change or special run, there may be little or no pressure to respond. The manager is insulated from the effect of public pressure. We believe Alaskans appreciate direct access to the public system that most affect their lives, and this bill will have a substantial negative impact on that access. II. THE ALASKA MARINE HIGHWAY SYSTEM IS NOT BROKEN. A. (UNRELENTING) NEGATIVE CRITICISM IS DESTRUCTIVE. There is a lot that is right about the Marine Highway System. The ships have a fine safety record, generally run on time, and provide simple, economical, comfortable and reliable transportation service to the traveling public. The state's economy receives approximately $170 million in benefits per year from operation of the system. Of course some mistakes are made. They are inevitable in an operation that is as vulnerable to as many variables as is the Marine Highway System. It is a system that has a large and varied constituency, and everybody has an opinion as to what should be done and how it should be operated. But overall, the system is doing what it was designed to do - transporting people in Southeast and Southwest in the context of an intermodal transportation network. Number 115 Past Legislatures have determined that the Marine Highway System is an essential part of the state transportation system that warrants continued and predictable state support. Many coummunities' economies are dependent on its steadiness and stability, and the state's tourism industry is greatly enhanced by the system. Those advantages are evident when the whole story of the system is told. But when only the mistakes and difficulties are discussed, when only the negatives are emphasized, when legislative funding levels are reduced each year and when the future of the system is under siege, those advantages are not recognized. The perception of an insecure future becomes a reality for employees whose lives are intricately woven into the system's future. The perception of a shrinking system is a source of considerable anxiety for communities and Alaska's whole economies and way of life have become partially dependent on the regular arrival of the ships. The perceived unwillingness of the Legislature to commit sufficient state resources to insure an adequate future for the system, cannot help but undercut morale, performance, and hope of the employees and those we serve. This has happened and it is sad. B. SB 21 IS A BAD IDEA. The bill sets up a layer of administration over which neither the Governor nor the Legislature will have control. We believe that is bad public policy. But even worse, it doesn't fix anything. There is nothing in the bill that encourages stability or financial support by the Legislature. There is nothing in the bill that addresses the increasing capital needs of an aging fleet. If there are major problems at Marine Highways, they can be handled. One of the biggest problems that you can help relieve is the time and energy that now is being spent controlling the damage caused by anxiety over the future. That is a problem that you can materially affect, by telling the whole story of this very successful state adventure, by demonstrating your support for its future and helping us fix the problems. The system is 35 years old, the ships are aging, the system is running the same type of service today it did 35 years ago - in 1976 Sitka was provided with 268 trips and in 1996 the number was 311. Today we are responding to the challenges of shrinking funding and increasing regulatory demands. The employees who you heard from in the last hearing are experiencing the impacts of these dynamics. People are being affected and jobs are being impacted. However, I believe a firm foundation is being laid for future statewide transportation services to include the essential Marine Highway System. Costs are being contained, vessels are being upgraded, the services are being used. In fact, we are now examining, with the Southeast Alaska Mayors, the Marine Highway employees and the Legislature the potential to dramatically change the way the system is operated and to offer improved and expanded service. We need your support. II. AN AUTHORITY WILL BE FURTHER ISOLATED FROM CAPITAL FUNDS. The Marine Highway System is presently managed by DOT/PF as an integral part of Alaska's intermodal transportation system. The majority of the routes have been designated by Congress as part of the National Highway System. As an operating arm of the department, the system receives federal highway aid funds from the department. By separating the system from DOT/PF, as an authority, operating independently from the rest of the department, the debate for funding the Marine Highway System capital improvements could conceivably shift more toward the Legislature for resolution. We will force the Marine Highway System to compete more aggressively with, individual communities throughout the state, other DOT/PF regions, and other agencies for its share of federal highway funds, rather than sharing them as one component of Alaska's intermodal transportation system. Number 180 While the Commissioner of DOT/PF would serve on the board of directors of this new authority, it is unrealistic to think that an organizational component which is separate from the rest of the agency -- and for which the commissioner no longer has primary responsibility -- will receive the same level of consideration for federal highway funds as it receives as a line agency within the department. III. THE AUTHORITY PROVIDES NO MECHANISM OR VEHICLES TO REDUCE SUBSIDIES. Although not expressly stated in the proposed legislation, an implicit purpose for an authority is apparently to insulate the Marine Highway System from inexperienced managers appointed through the political patronage process. It should be noted, we have 16 employees with over 290 years of maritime experience who are working in the administration and management of the system; dedicated, experienced employees. As already noted, such insulation also isolates the system from direct accountability from the public. This might be acceptable if the authority was established to run the system as a business, designed to be self- supporting through revenues. However, this is not the case. The Marine Highway System presently derives about 60 % of its operating funds from revenues, with the remaining 40 % of its operating budget appropriated from the general fund by the Legislature. Nothing in this proposed legislation is directed toward changing that funding relationship. The proposed authority is not designed to be self-sufficient. It will continue to require annual legislative appropriations for operations and capital improvements. What then is the justification for establishing it as a state corporation? An authority will require additional subsidy to fund its increased overhead costs. IV. ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS ARE LIKELY TO INCREASE. The Marine Highway System is already and unfairly criticized for the large size of its central office staff. However, if the Marine Highway System is split from the rest of DOT/PF into an quasi- independent authority, it will lose the administrative support presently provided by the department and administrative costs for AMHS will certainly increase. Personnel and accounting services which are now provided in part by headquarters would fall entirely on the authority. So would engineering services now being provided by Southeast region. The system would be further removed from the Federal Highway Administration. The relations with DOT/PF and FHWA would be complicated since CFR Title 23 for the administration of federal highway funding programs is the responsibility of the state highway agency DOT/PF. Separate accounting and data processing systems will almost certainly be necessary. The authority will not be exempt from the Executive Budget Act, State Procurement Code and other state mandated rules and regulations. V. AN AUTHORITY WILL NOT SOLVE THE SYSTEM'S HIGH LABOR COSTS. Labor agreements for Marine Highway System employees are currently negotiated and administered as a part of the state's overall labor relations program. Although vessel employees were 10 years ahead of their shoreside peers in collective bargaining, economic settlements in the last two decades have been reasonably uniform and consistent for all state employee groups. As proposed, all employees of the authority would be placed into the exempt service but remain subject to the terms of existing labor agreements until their expirations. The authority is then authorized to negotiate new labor agreements, although it is somewhat unclear whether or not the terms of those agreements must be consistent with those of other executive branch employees. Since the authority's employees will be in the exempt service, they are prohibited by bargaining regulations from remaining in the same classified employee bargaining units from which they came. This means adding at least four more bargaining units and contracts for just authority staff (general government, supervisory, confidential, and labor, trades & crafts). Some of these units would be composed of only a handful of employees, but each small group has the same rights to negotiate as larger employee groups. Each requires the authority's resources to negotiate new contracts, and each has the right to engage in a strike if those negotiations fail. The economic leverage which could be exerted by these small groups of employees would be considerable. Each has the potential to shut the system down in the event an impasse in contract negotiations result in a strike. Number 250 VI. SUMMARY Alaska's long-term historical experience with creating and operating authorities and public corporations has not been entirely positive. Consider the Alaska Power Authority, of which I was a member. At the time of its creation, the APA was billed as the answer to Alaska's need for cheap and abundant energy. Visions were for hydroelectric and other power projects throughout the state, with modern, power grids serving the majority of Alaska. After numerous legislative changes to the authority over several years, it was finally closed down by the Legislature as an operational agency. The Alaska Railroad Corporation is another good example. It was formed by the Legislature just over a decade ago. Today, the Legislature is considering restricting the operations or potentially selling that corporation. Could these examples be applicable to a Marine Highway Authority? The answer is yes as this Legislature cannot bind future legislative actions. The proposed authority would be a move in the wrong direction as far as transportation in Alaska is concerned. Six years ago, Congress initiated major changes in the National Transportation Industry with the enactment of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). "Intermodal" is the "I" in ISTEA. The simple genius of ISTEA is its premise that transportation choices cannot be efficiently or economically made in isolation from one another. This concept is called intermodalism. A decision to invest more public money in roads, or in airports, or in ferry vessels, requires a balancing of public policy issues that cannot be completely balanced if one transportation mode is somehow treated differently. Nationally, the trend is to bring modes together to provide more efficient transportation systems. As I travel to other states and discuss issues with my peers, it is clear that intermodalism is not a passing fad. It is here to stay because it just makes sense. ISTEA will be reauthorized this year by Congress as ISTEA II. We all recognized that the Marine Highway System cannot continue to operate as if it were still in the 1960's. Times have changed, and the needs of Alaska's communities and the traveling public have changed, the transportation network along Alaska's coastline has changed. The changes needed in the Marine Highway System may be dramatic. However, SB 21 takes us in the wrong direction. With the help of the Legislature, we need to work to insure that the Marine Highway System truly functions as an integral element in a well designed statewide transportation system. This Administration will change and improve the system but these changes must be well thought out and have the support of the people of Alaska. This takes time and the worst action we can take now is to make changes such as this bill does without thoughtful and deliberate considerations of its short and long term consequences. Number 308 In response to Senator Taylor, COMMISSIONER PERKINS agreed that the Legislature did not increase the department's budget last year. Commissioner Perkins clarified that AIDEA owes the department money, and a small amount may have been paid. That amount would be placed in the fund not into operations. SENATOR TAYLOR believed that last year's budget increased by $1.3 million. The Administration made some changes regarding the cost the department was required to share with Risk Management and the amount of the increase in salaries out of the contracts. COMMISSIONER PERKINS said that he based that statement on what the department requested and what funding was actually received which was about $75,000 less. In response to Senator Taylor, Commissioner Perkins offered to provide last year's budget information to the committee. In further response to Senator Taylor, Commissioner Perkins assumed that a new group would be required in order to handle labor negotiations. SENATOR TAYLOR asked if this would be a different organization than now. Currently, Mr. Ayers sends memos to Mr. Boyer making decisions regarding the politics that may impact the third floor. Senator Taylor emphasized that process would be desirable to change. COMMISSIONER PERKINS said that he did not know that happens. SENATOR TAYLOR stated that he had documentation of such which was in the Daily News. In response to Senator Taylor, COMMISSIONER PERKINS said that the closure of the bars was a cost issue. He did not believe that it was an issue upon which to hold public hearings. Commissioner Perkins stressed that the bars cost more than the revenue generated from the bars. The people in Fairbanks and Anchorage were subsidizing every alcoholic beverage served on every ferry, except the Columbia. The money lost can be applied to better service. Commissioner Perkins acknowledged that some say revenue was lost with the closure of the bars, but in order to make a profit or break even the cost must be contained. When costs exceed revenue, then no matter the amount of revenue bankruptcy follows. SENATOR TAYLOR said that would apply to the entire system from Gary Hayden's position to anyone else's position that does not generate revenue. Senator Taylor pointed out that the task force only received numbers without the 40 percent subsidy within them which is the only way in which to illustrate a loss. When the 40 percent subsidy is included on every employee, every bar generated a profit over cost. COMMISSIONER PERKINS disagreed with Senator Taylor. Commissioner Perkins did not believe the people of Alaska should subsidize drinks in state facilities. The bars were subsidized in addition to the 40 percent. SENATOR TAYLOR said that the bars were not subsidized more than the 40 percent. If the 40 percent is placed on the numbers submitted by Mr. Hayden, then every bar makes a profit. COMMISSIONER PERKINS asked if the State of Alaska wants to subsidize, even at the 40 percent level, liquor on a ferry. Commissioner Perkins replied no. That is a business answer, not a moral response. Number 380 SENATOR TAYLOR assumed then the same would apply to food which is also subsidized by 40 percent. COMMISSIONER PERKINS believed that people had a right to eat on ferries. Commissioner Perkins did not believe that alcohol was a necessity for travelling. SENATOR TAYLOR noted that the records speak for themselves, the numbers submitted by the department are contrary to Commissioner Perkins' comments. The fact that the bars have been a service to the traveling public 35 years before the present management, indicates prior management. Further, the record reflects that the closure of the bar was not a public process. COMMISSIONER PERKINS pointed out that in last year's transportation hearings bar closures were discussed. SENATOR TAYLOR interjected that so were other issues such as the reduction in routes, but there was no indication that a policy would be implemented without the public process or the Legislature. Moreover, the only public input resulted in 90 percent opposition to closure of the bars. SENATOR GREEN recognized that there is a problem with AMHS. In the absence of SB 21, what is being done? Where is AMHS going in the future? Further, is it time to change the direction of the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC)? COMMISSIONER PERKINS said that the ARRC does not receive any state appropriations while making a profit. Commissioner Perkins believed that the ARRC was doing well in the business world. Placing the ARRC under the Executive Budget Act would tie the railroad's hands. If an Alaska Marine Highway Authority is created, what will a Legislature 10 years from now do? Establishing an authority does not guarantee success. With regard to what is being done with the AMHS, Commissioner Perkins acknowledged that there is and has been for a number of years a labor - management problem. All those, but one, who testified at the last hearing were AMHS employees not the public. In Commissioner Perkins' opinion, the emphasis for change begins with unhappy employees. This requires attention. Commissioner Perkins reiterated that the AMHS was being operated the same as 20- 30 years ago when it was created. Change in the way in which the system is operated is necessary. Commissioner Perkins informed the committee that there are eight proposals addressing the fate of the Malaspina which effects the Kennicott as well as the entire system. Therefore, the decision regarding the Malaspina will change the AMHS. Commissioner Perkins noted that each committee member would receive a package for comments on the future of the system. Commissioner Perkins acknowledged that AMHS has problems, but these problems have manifested over the long-term not just in the past two years. Number 479 MIKE MCMULLEN , Division of Personnel, requested that more attention be given to collective bargaining. In 1992 the Legislature moved some programs from the Department of Community & Regional Affairs to the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC), the collective bargaining confusion from that move resulted in a Supreme Court decision. That decision in August of 1996 remanded parts of the case back to the labor relations agency and to the Superior Court. Five years later, the issue remains unresolved. Mr. McMullen identified the problem as the provisions in the bill that would give the Authority collective bargaining authority over all of its employees. The transition is transitioning positions now in four collective bargaining units of positions of the classified service. As these contracts expire, the question regarding what is the new unit in the authority and who negotiates with them is a confusing point. The general government argument will likely be that since the positions were perpetuated into a successor agency, the general government already represents them. The result would be two employers representing them with one union in a unit that crossed two authorities. Unless that confusion is addressed by the Legislature, the saga will continue in the courts. Mr. McMullen noted that there is no precedent in Alaska for this, but he offered to work with the committee if the bill is to move forward. SENATOR TAYLOR asked if Mr. McMullen had any recommendations. MIKE MCMULLEN said that if the outcome is to have the authority be a complete severance from the classified service and existing bargaining units, more language could clarify the expiration of existing contracts. CHAIRMAN WARD asked if anyone else wanted to testify on SB 21. SENATOR WILKEN moved the sponsor's amendment, Amendment 1. SENATOR LINCOLN requested that Senator Taylor explain the amendment. SENATOR TAYLOR deferred to Mr. Ward. Number 523 DOUG WARD , Project Manager for Alaska Ship and Dry Dock, said that the amendment is important and necessary. The amendment would provide a complete and accurate business accounting and evaluation of all interport costs which is essential in order to level the playing field for Alaskan shipyards. The AMHS is the only portion of Alaska's federal road system that can send its highway out of state for maintenance. SB 21 would help to repatriate a larger portion of Alaska's highway maintenance dollars to Alaska which will place Alaskan shipyards as a viable enterprise while diversifying the economy. Mr. Ward explained that Amendment 1 would require that all costs of delivering an Alaskan vessel to an outside shipyard would be considered in the total interport cost differential. Mr. Ward acknowledged that some believe that some of the costs are considered to be insignificant or difficult to calculate and would not make a difference in the overall interport process. For example, the deferred maintenance of a vessel during its delivery voyage to an out of state shipyard has been considered insignificant. The crew payroll cost during a delivery voyage is also not included in the interport differential. Mr. Ward understood that due to the guaranteed pay periods existing with the union contracts, these ferry employees would be paid during the delivery voyage whether on the job or not. Mr. Ward believed that this represented a lost opportunity cost to the state. Competitive bid situations anticipate a number of items that may or may not be turned on during the course of the work. Bid amounts are typically much higher than the actual volume of work performed during the contract period. Mr. Ward said that results in a dilution of the interport differential when determined on the overall bid amount which could lead to work being sent to out of state shipyards. If a lesser anticipated contract amount were used in the determination, the work would have stayed in the state. SB 21 would allow Alaskan shipyards the ability to repatriate the maximum amount of Alaskan jobs and dollars. In response to Senator Lincoln, SENATOR TAYLOR said that the last funding on the AMHS maintenance facility in Ketchikan was 1986. At that time, there was legislation which attempted to mandate that the work done on Alaskan vessels would remain in the state. That bill was opposed by the Sheffield Administration and the Commissioner of the AMHS. The legislation required reports be provided to the Legislature regarding why a particular shipyard was chosen. TAPE 97-6, SIDE B Number 587 Senator Taylor noted that Washington does not send any of its ships out of state for work which is because Washington uses general funds without mixing in federal highway funds. The federal highway funds are used for other things and the general funds are taken from those. Alaska mixes the federal highway funds with state general funds for a maintenance project. When that project is put out to bid, the lowest bid must be taken because federal funds were included. That legislation had a five year sunset which is now in its third sunset. The amendment is necessary in order to provide some direction for the authority regarding where the boats will be worked on. Senator Taylor stressed the need for this amendment to keep these boats in state. SENATOR GREEN asked if this was standard language in the amendment. SENATOR TAYLOR replied yes, and noted that the language is actually weaker. CHAIRMAN WARD asked if anyone objected to the adoption of Amendment 1. Without objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. Chairman Ward inquired as to the pleasure of the committee. In response to Senator Lincoln, CHAIRMAN WARD said that he intende to report the bill out of committee today. SENATOR LINCOLN referred to page 12 when she indicated that she was unsure as to the language that would address the Division of Personnel's concern regarding the collective bargaining agreement. Senator Lincoln assumed that the division would present some language to the next committee of referral, State Affairs. CHAIRMAN WARD said that Mr. McMullen shook his head indicating that he would provide language in the State Affairs Committee. SENATOR LINCOLN asked where is the Gulf of Alaska area west of Icy Cape. Senator Lincoln reviewed the breakdown of the board members. Will the areas with the ferry system, Cordova, Whittier, and Valdez also be considered for the board? SENATOR TAYLOR said it was an arbitrary choice of numbers based on the volume of the fleet and the location of the vessels. In response to Senator Lincoln, Senator Taylor said that the task force did consider where the board members would come from and to whom they would be responsible. That was one of the recommendations, but the specific details were not discussed. Number 524 SENATOR LINCOLN noted that the three Senators appointed to the task force were majority members; were all the recommendations of the task force included in SB 21. SENATOR TAYLOR replied no, SB 21 only represents one aspect of the task force report. This legislation was created about eight years ago and SB 21 is the result of all the work in those eight years. SENATOR LINCOLN referred to page 5 regarding the AMHS's ability to acquire property; how is this different than the situation with ARRC? SENATOR TAYLOR stressed that ARRC's single biggest asset is its land. The AMHS only has land for limited upland purposes such as terminals, parking lots, etc. SENATOR LINCOLN did not believe the language was limiting to that and she cautioned what authority was given in this area. JOE AMBROSE , Staff to Senator Taylor, pointed out that the AMHS Authority is nothing like the ARRC which is totally independent. The AMHS Authority is an exclusive agency of Alaska to which all of the Authority's assets belong. SENATOR HALFORD asked if there was legislative confirmation of the board members. JOE AMBROSE informed the committee that a provision requiring legislative confirmation was requested. However, this is an administrative/management board rather than a regulatory board and the drafting attorney said that was not the purview of the Legislature. In response to Senator Halford, Mr. Ambrose agreed that if the board was given any quasi-judicial or regulatory function, confirmation could be required. SENATOR HALFORD suggested that a quasi-judicial or regulatory function and a corresponding confirmation procedure be determined for this board. CHAIRMAN WARD inquired as to the pleasure of the committee. Number 456 SENATOR WILKEN moved to report CSSB 21(HES) out of committee with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes. SENATOR LINCOLN objected. Upon a roll call vote, Senators Ward, Wilken, Green, and Halford voted "Yea" and Senator Lincoln voted "Nay". Therefore, CSSB 21(HES) was reported out of committee. CHAIRMAN WARD announced that the Confirmation Hearings for the Board of Marine Pilots would be the next order of business. He asked Ms. Barbara Huff Tuckness to provide the committee with a brief statement regarding who she was and why she wanted to be a board member. BARBARA HUFF TUCKNESS , Board of Marine Pilots Appointee, informed the committee that she has been a resident of Alaska since 1972. Ms. Tuckness valued the public and political process and said that she would take pride in serving in the public position of the board. Alaska's waterways provide a valuable recreational and economical resource. Ms. Tuckness believed that the AMHS is the life blood for the state. If confirmed, Ms. Tuckness said that she would attempt to ensure that the best interests of the public is served by ensuring that standards and regulations are adhered to. Ms. Tuckness informed the committee of her background with negotiating and conflict resolution. She expressed a commitment to work together with the marine pilots and the shipping industry in order to continue to achieve the safety and economic value of Alaska's waterways. Ms. Tuckness thanked the committee and offered to answer any questions. Number 403 DAVID STEWART , Board of Marine Pilots Appointee, noted that he too was being considered for a public position on the board. Mr. Stewart has been a resident of Alaska since 1975 and is a lawyer with experience primarily in the criminal area. He has served as a District Court Judge in Anchorage and for a short time in the Public Defenders Office in Fairbanks. Mr. Stewart emphasized his belief in public service to the state. Mr. Stewart informed the committee that he had no specific ties with the marine industry, but noted his review of the recent Supreme Court decision involving Marine Pilots Board litigation. Mr. Stewart thanked the committee and offered to answer any questions. SENATOR HALFORD acknowledged that Mr. Stewart's background was adequate to serve on the board, however he asked Mr. Stewart why he would want to serve. Senator Halford noted that Mr. Stewart listed Special Counsel for the State of Alaska. DAVID STEWART explained that he had been asked by Attorney General Cole to review the potential for prosecution against a lawyer having contacts with Governor Hickel's Administration. Further, Mr. Stewart had looked into whether there were state criminal violations in the Cordova road project. Both those have been completed and nothing is pending for the State of Alaska. With regards to why participate, Mr. Stewart expressed an interest in public service. SENATOR HALFORD assumed that Mr. Stewart did not deal with matters dealing with transportation or industry. DAVID STEWART replied no, commercially he represented Fred Meyer. SENATOR HALFORD commended Mr. Stewart for desiring to serve on this board. BERNIE SMITH , Marine Pilots Board Appointee, informed the committee that he had served on this board last year and his term expired. He had been asked to serve again. Mr. Smith noted that he has been the chief negotiator for Tesoro with whom he is employed for the Southwest pilots. He represents the Southcentral Industry. Mr. Smith believed that he had a good reputation in this area as well as a good relationship with the shippers in Cook Inlet and Prince Williams Sound. Mr. Stewart was happy to serve on the board and offered to answer any questions. SENATOR HALFORD asked if Mr. Smith served in the industry seat. CHAIRMAN WARD replied yes. SENATOR GREEN moved to report the confirmation packets from committee with individual recommendations. Without objection, it was so ordered. There being no further business before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 2:45 p.m.