Legislature(2003 - 2004)

03/18/2004 02:15 PM JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 447 - 2004 REVISORS BILL                                                                                                   
Number 0598                                                                                                                     
CHAIR McGUIRE announced  that the next order of  business would be                                                              
HOUSE BILL  NO. 447, "An Act  making corrective amendments  to the                                                              
Alaska Statutes  as recommended  by the  revisor of statutes;  and                                                              
providing  for an  effective  date."   [Before  the committee  was                                                              
CSHB 447(STA).]                                                                                                                 
Number 0585                                                                                                                     
PAM  FINLEY,  Revisor  of  Statutes,  Legislative  Legal  Counsel,                                                              
Legislative  Legal  and  Research  Services,  Legislative  Affairs                                                              
Agency, noted  that in  members' packets  is a sectional  analysis                                                              
of  HB 447  and  two  amendments.   The  bill,  in general,  is  a                                                              
cleanup  bill, she  remarked, that  to the best  of her  knowledge                                                              
has no policy changes  in it - it merely makes  conforming changes                                                              
to statutes  that have been amended.   Of the two  amendments, the                                                              
first one,  which comes  at the request  of the attorney  general,                                                              
cleans up  statutes in light of  Carlson v. C.F.E.C., 65  P.3d 851                                                            
(Alaska  2003)(Carlson   III),  which  pertains  to   fishing  fee                                                            
differentials;  in  its decision,  the  Alaska Supreme  Court  has                                                              
determined which part  of current statute is valid  and which part                                                              
is not.   She added  that because the  current statute  became law                                                              
at  the request  of  the  executive  branch specifically  for  the                                                              
Carlson case,  "it makes sense to me  to clean it up  as they have                                                            
requested."   The  second amendment,  she  relayed, merely  alters                                                              
one  subsection  that  was  missed  "when  we  went  from  spousal                                                              
equivalents to domestic partners."                                                                                              
Number 0447                                                                                                                     
CHAIR  McGUIRE made  a motion to  adopt Amendment  1, labeled  23-                                                              
LS1377\I.1, Finley, 3/11/04, which read:                                                                                        
     Page 7, line 27, through page 8, line 9:                                                                                   
          Delete all material and insert:                                                                                       
               "(C)  [GENERAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES FOR                                                                       
     GOVERNMENT SERVICES  THAT ARE USED  BY A PORTION  OF THE                                                                   
     POPULATION   ATTRIBUTABLE   TO  THE   PRESENCE  OF   THE                                                                   
     COMMERCIAL   FISHING  INDUSTRY,   INCLUDING   GOVERNMENT                                                                   
     SERVICES PROVIDED  BY THE DEPARTMENT OF  ADMINISTRATION,                                                                   
     DEPARTMENT OF  CORRECTIONS, DEPARTMENT OF  EDUCATION AND                                                                   
     EARLY  DEVELOPMENT,  DEPARTMENT  OF  HEALTH  AND  SOCIAL                                                                   
     SERVICES,   DEPARTMENT   OF   MILITARY   AND   VETERANS'                                                                   
     AFFAIRS,  AND DEPARTMENT  OF  TRANSPORTATION AND  PUBLIC                                                                   
               (D)]  capital costs directly supporting                                                                      
        [EXPENDITURES TO SUPPORT] the commercial fishing                                                                        
     industry [AS MEASURED BY ANNUAL DEPRECIATION OF PUBLIC                                                                     
     FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE]; and                                                                                        
               (D) [(E)]  expenditures to subsidize the                                                                     
     construction and operation of salmon hatcheries [; AND                                                                     
               (3)  THE AMOUNT OF REVENUE FOREGONE BY THE                                                                       
         STATE DUE TO THE CURRENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR                                                                         
     COMMERCIAL FISHERIES IN THE STATE]."                                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE GARA  objected for the  purpose of discussion.   He                                                              
asked why  the change proposed via  Amendment 1 should  be made to                                                              
the revisor's bill.                                                                                                             
MS. FINLEY relayed  that Section 11 of CSHB 447(STA)  amends items                                                              
that were  missed in  executive orders,  and that AS  16.43.160(e)                                                              
is an  explanation  of all the  aspects of  state government  that                                                              
could  justify   fee  differentials   between  resident   and  non                                                              
resident  fishing licenses  and  entry permits.   When  subsection                                                              
(e) was passed -  at the time, the Carlson case  was still ongoing                                                            
- it  was done so  at the request  of the executive  branch, which                                                              
wanted  legislative  support of  its  position  as to  what  would                                                              
constitute  a  legitimate  basis  for  fee  differentials  between                                                              
resident  and nonresident.   The  Alaska Supreme  Court looked  at                                                              
all  of those  items, said  yes to  some of  the items  and no  to                                                              
others, and decided what changes needed to be made.                                                                             
MS.  FINLEY said  that  Amendment 1  reflects  the Alaska  Supreme                                                              
Court's decision,  that being that  what is listed in  the current                                                              
subparagraph   (C)  -   which   relates  to   general   government                                                              
expenditures  -  is not  specific  enough;  that the  language  in                                                              
current  subparagraph   (D),  "expenditures  to  support   ...  as                                                              
measured  by   annual  depreciation   of  public  facilities   and                                                              
infrastructure"   is  not   acceptable,   though  "capital   costs                                                              
directly  supporting  the  commercial   fishing  industry"  is  an                                                              
acceptable  basis for a  fee differential;  and that the  language                                                              
in  current  paragraph  (3),  regarding   the  amount  of  revenue                                                              
forgone by the state, was also unacceptable.                                                                                    
Number 0277                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  GARA opined  that these appear  to be  substantive                                                              
changes  that are properly  the  subjects of  bills rather  than a                                                              
revisor's bill.                                                                                                                 
MS. FINLEY remarked:                                                                                                            
     That's  one   reason  why  I  don't  usually   clean  up                                                                   
     statutes,  because I figure  the legislature might  want                                                                   
     to  clean  them  up  in [a]  different  way.    In  this                                                                   
     particular  case,  the  bracketed   language  ...  could                                                                   
     still be there  [but] it can't be effective  because the                                                                   
     court  has  said it  can't  be  effective, that  ...  it                                                                   
     would not be  constitutional to use those as  bases.  So                                                                   
     in terms of  substantive effect, there ...  should be no                                                                   
     substantive  effect.   We could  leave  the language  in                                                                   
     and it  still wouldn't matter.   So the only  reason for                                                                   
     taking it  out is so that  people that read  the statute                                                                   
     -  but  not   the  case  notes  -  understand   what  is                                                                   
     acceptable and what isn't.                                                                                                 
MS. FINLEY,  in response to  further questions, said  that Carlson                                                            
III was decided  almost a year  ago, and the Alaska  Supreme Court                                                            
"reversed and  remanded on the issue  of the hatcheries  loan fund                                                              
subsidy and  they partially remand  on the issue of  capital costs                                                              
for findings."   Beyond  that, she  relayed,  she is not  familiar                                                              
with the status of "that remand."                                                                                               
CHAIR  McGUIRE  said  she  could  think  of  a  lot  of  statutes,                                                              
particularly in  the area of  abortion and parental  consent, that                                                              
have been "repeatedly  shot down" but are still in  existence.  "I                                                              
could imagine  the [House] floor fight  on a revisor's  bill if we                                                              
were to do a similar type of exercise on them," she added.                                                                      
MS.  FINLEY said  she  would be  happy  to withdraw  Amendment  1;                                                              
she'd merely  felt the  need to  offer it because  it came  at the                                                              
request of the  attorney general and it was a  reasonable request.                                                              
"That's  why I do  not usually  try to  clean up  the statutes  to                                                              
make them  fit the  court, because  sometimes the legislature  has                                                              
different ideas about  what they want to do,"  she relayed, adding                                                              
that if  the committee is uncomfortable  with Amendment 1,  she is                                                              
fine with not adopting it.                                                                                                      
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG  said he would like to  have the statutes                                                              
be  constitutional,  suggested  that the  committee  should  adopt                                                              
Amendment  1, and  pointed  out  that if  anyone  objects to  this                                                              
change, Amendment  1 could  be removed  on the  House floor  or by                                                              
the Senate.                                                                                                                     
TAPE 04-40, SIDE A                                                                                                            
Number 0001                                                                                                                     
CHAIR  McGUIRE  said  her  concern  revolves  around  whether  the                                                              
Carlson  case  is still  going  through  the process  and  whether                                                            
Amendment 1  would be codifying  what the  court has said  now but                                                              
which could change  later.  She indicated that she  did not have a                                                              
problem with adopting Amendment 1.                                                                                              
REPRESENTATIVE GARA  asked Ms. Finley whether she  feels that what                                                              
is  being  done  via  Amendment  1  is  a  proper  subject  for  a                                                              
revisor's bill.                                                                                                                 
MS.  FINLEY  said she  doesn't  think  that  Amendment 1  makes  a                                                              
substantive  change  because the  language  it is  deleting  isn't                                                              
applicable due  to the court ruling.   Amendment 1 is  cleaning up                                                              
a statute  to match a court  decision, though such a  change would                                                              
not  usually  be  included  in   a  revisor's  bill  because  most                                                              
statutes  are passed by  the legislature  because the  legislature                                                              
wanted  a change.    The statute  being  altered  by Amendment  1,                                                              
however,  came  at  the  request  of the  executive  branch.    In                                                              
conclusion,  she  remarked  that   Amendment  1  is  properly  the                                                              
subject of  a revisor's  bill, though, again,  she would  not have                                                              
suggested it and doesn't feel any need to push the issue.                                                                       
Number 0203                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GARA removed his objection.                                                                                      
Number 0214                                                                                                                     
CHAIR McGUIRE asked  whether there were any further  objections to                                                              
Amendment 1.  There being none, Amendment 1 was adopted.                                                                        
Number 0224                                                                                                                     
CHAIR  McGUIRE made  a motion to  adopt Amendment  2, labeled  23-                                                              
LS1377\I.2, Finley, 3/11/04, which read:                                                                                        
     Page 12, following line 3:                                                                                                 
     Insert a new bill section to read:                                                                                         
        "* Sec. 24.  AS 39.50.030(g) is amended to read:                                                                    
          (g)  The requirements in this section for                                                                             
       disclosures related to a person's domestic partner                                                                   
       [SPOUSAL EQUIVALENT] do not apply to an elected or                                                                       
     appointed municipal officer."                                                                                              
     Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.                                                                          
     Page 18, line 3:                                                                                                           
          Delete "sec. 38"                                                                                                  
          Insert "sec. 39"                                                                                                  
     Page 19, line 3:                                                                                                           
          Delete "sec. 38"                                                                                                      
          Insert "sec. 39"                                                                                                      
     Page 19, lines 22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 31:                                                                             
          Delete "sec. 25"                                                                                                      
          Insert "sec. 26"                                                                                                      
     Page 20, line 1:                                                                                                           
          Delete "sec. 25"                                                                                                      
          Insert "sec. 26"                                                                                                      
     Page 20, line 5:                                                                                                           
          Delete "SECTION 25.  Section 25"                                                                                      
          Insert "SECTION 26.  Section 26"                                                                                      
     Page 20, line 8:                                                                                                           
          Delete "sec. 41"                                                                                                      
          Insert "sec. 42"                                                                                                      
     Page 20, line 13:                                                                                                          
          Delete "sec. 25"                                                                                                      
          Insert "sec. 26"                                                                                                      
     Page 20, line 14:                                                                                                          
          Delete "sec. 41"                                                                                                      
          Insert "sec. 42"                                                                                                      
     Page 20, line 17:                                                                                                          
          Delete "sec. 51"                                                                                                      
          Insert "sec. 52"                                                                                                      
CHAIR  McGUIRE   asked  whether  there  were  any   objections  to                                                              
Amendment 2.  There being none, Amendment 2 was adopted.                                                                        
Number 0290                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE   GRUENBERG  noted   that  many   years  ago,   the                                                              
legislature   used  to   receive  a   pamphlet  detailing   "court                                                              
decisions,    administrative     decisions,    regulations,    and                                                              
potentially  statutes that  may  need amendment  or  change."   He                                                              
indicated that  he would like to  get the pamphlets from  the last                                                              
few years  and then  relay to  the committee  any suggestions  for                                                              
MS.  FINLEY  mentioned  that  those   pamphlets  are  produced  by                                                              
Legislative Legal and Research Services.                                                                                        
CHAIR  McGUIRE indicated  that she  did  not have  a problem  with                                                              
Representative Gruenberg following up on that issue.                                                                            
Number 0548                                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  ANDERSON   moved  to  report  CSHB   447(STA),  as                                                              
amended,  out of  committee  with individual  recommendations  and                                                              
the  accompanying zero  fiscal note.   There  being no  objection,                                                              
CSHB  447(JUD) was  reported  from  the House  Judiciary  Standing                                                              

Document Name Date/Time Subjects