Herding Cats and Other Bad Cliches as Leg Takes a Picture

The cliche "hard as herding cats" is frequently used here to describe getting legislators together on anything - particularly Democrats.  Well, on Friday the herd was rounded up for a picture.  House Majority Press Secretary Will Vandergriff said it took a month to arrange - what with everyone's schedules, getting the Juneau City Government's people available to block off the street, and to get the Weather Service to provide sunshine. 

But they took advantage of Friday's joint session for approving nominations when they had everyone together. 







Above we have everybody - all the senators and all the representatives and lots of the staff and other people who work in the building. 

Below, we have just the House Minority with their staff. 

The video below is the House Minority - just the legislators - trying to get their picture taken.

Sun, Snow, Blossoms, and Hsieh's Birthday

Let me put a few things together here, otherwise I'd have way too many posts.





The sun is finally above Mt. Roberts in the morning and coming into our apartment. 

So I had sunshine when I signed up for Medicare by phone today.  I'll have to start paying $110 per month to get less coverage than I have now.  She did say that if we went over a certain income level, we'd have to pay another $34 per month.  What was the level?  $180K - $210 K or some such range.  I said, "If I'm making that much, I'd be pleased to pay another $34 a month."  She said that most people complain.


I decided I need to show that getting Medicare doesn't have to mean I'm old, so I went for a run while the sun was out. 

 Going up Basin Road - I'm never exactly sure when Basin ends and Perseverance Trail beings - I passed this person sleeping.  I've seen his stuff there when I've run by in the past.  Sometimes it's rolled up in a red tarp and sometimes it's like this, possibly with someone sleeping inside.  Is this person homeless?  I guess, in the sense that he's sleeping out in the woods, yes.  In the sense that he doesn't have a man made shelter to live in - presumably, but I won't jump to conclusions.  It's not a bad place to be, though I don't know I'd sleep that visible to so many hikers and runners.  And will his stuff attract bears as they come out of hibernation? 

The steep cliff sign is not a joke.  They've cut this trail right through the mountains further up and I pass it with some concern as I go by.  It just doesn't look too stable.  I assume that the odds are pretty low that a rock will fall down as I go by.  But I do think about it. 

 Here's the spot.  It's really beautiful, but I watched earlier in the year as water ran down in the cracks. 

 These rocks weren't here when I came this way last week. 

Up around the corner, it's breathtaking.  But if you look carefully, you can see boulder tracks in the snow too.  

Skipping to later in the day,  Rep. Egan staffer, Alida Bus, let me know that today is AP reporter, Jeremy Hsieh's birthday.

 Happy Birthday Jeremy

And later, as I went down the steps to go to the market I found this blossoming tree.  Not sure what it is.  An apple? [Alaskapi in the comments says it's a crabapple.]

State Song Verse Addition Passes 5-1 Out of House Judiciary

The addition of the second verse to the state song was passed 5-1 in the House Judiciary Committee this afternoon after a long and certainly not unanimous discussion.  I'll post this now with my  VERY ROUGH NOTES - DO NOT RELY ON THEM EXCEPT FOR A SENSE OF THE DISCUSSION.

I'll try to add pictures a video later.  This was a very emotional meeting.  Now the committee is working on SB 284 - Campaign Expenditure Disclosure.  Chair Ramras has said the committee will carry over to tomorrow Saturday at 10am so it can be voted on.

SB:  43  State Song Second Verse Discussion


Ramras:  Talking about the people in the room including the state archivist to ensure that the words as originally authored and copyrighted,
to insure we are being respectful culturally and to the author.  Floor is yours Sen. Menard as long as you can stay.
Sen. Menard:  I proudly bring this second verse to you today.  This passed a few years back from the house with a strong vote, but stumbled in the Senate.  This year the opposite.  We'll go ahead and see how this plays out.  I've spent hours trying to explain.

[Reads sponsor statement.]

[She goes on] The intent is to recognize Alaska Natives and the Native lad who designed the flag.  Some have said it changes history, I say it adds to it and compliments.  We've added other parts of history.  There are others who want to speak to the bill and hope we have enough votes to pass it out of committee.


Gatto:  The sponsor was referencing me with the honor and remember flag.  It does not add to the American flag or any other flag by adding on to it.  But the verse is adding on to something.  There is a difference from adding a flag and adding it to others from adding more stars or stripes to the flag.  There is no corrolary between adding a flag and changing it.  I want to hear from the public first.


Herron:  Why did you introduce this personally?
Menard:  I was asked to do this.  I feel strongly.  I have a minor in music, it is a tribute to Native people I feel was left out.  I had conversations with Fran Ulmer over it, and I thought I could be the vehicle.  I didn't need my name on the bill.  When I believe in something and feel I continue to press on, which this has turned out to be.  I'm not backing down because I feel it's a good bill.  People would like the ability to sing both verses without copyright problems.
Herron:  I don't believe you are worried about pride of authorship.  Was there a contest for the flag?
Menard:  Yes there was.  I'll turn this over to staff Michael Rovito.
Rovito:  There was a contest to designe the flag and Benson won.
Herron:  Was there a contest for the first verse of the song?

Rovito:  I can't answer that, but others are here who can.


Ramras:  Go off line with archivsit, and some others, here in the room, I only have one person listed, if others wish to testify, please sign up.  Letter in your packet April 7 from University of Alaska, in order to protect the copyrights no alteration made in the text and that on copies, there be copyright information on the text.  If you turn to page 2, this is the way the authors wrote it, this is the verse we have, typos and capitalization problems included. [Native is spelled with a small "n" in both places in the bill.]
David, would you speak to the authenticity of the song as we have it.

Mr. David Woodley:  UA foundation holds the copyright of second version 1986 from the US copyright office, which appears identical in text to the bill at issue today.  Over the years it has become clear a number of changes have been made, some of which were not objectionable, - capitalization, commas, etc. not objectionable, but others more significant.  Our attorneys say that these probably do not jeopardize the copyright.  But we feel that we should maintain it as close to the original as possible.
Ramras:  There are 40 very interested people in the room and we appreciate your commentary.  Would you tell us your position and for how long as archivist.
David Woodly:  Exec. Director of Advancement SErvices, includes all forms of records available to the foundation.  Employee of foundation for 4 years and UA 10 years before that.  Before that Mr. Scott Taylor and he has been an employee for ages, but was not available for this session today, or I would have relied on him.  He has reconstructed a whole history of UA and state song relationship.
Gatto:  By chance, not by design, I found myself in company of a patent attorney.  But in the discussion we discussed how to violate a patent.  it came down to not a comma, not a period, not a space, could you simply change when it was already patented.  I'm curious when you say this is not the identical to the original.  Is using this a patent violation since it has changes.
Woodley:  Not an attorney.  But over the years we've seen little alterations here and there, we don't go after them to say you violated.  We are concerned with preserving the work as a whole.  IN the event used for farcical or comedic, takes the words and tryies to provoke something not intended by the author have we taken action.  The owner , Davis, gave us the second verse, and we feel it is our obligations.
Ramras:  Want to make it clear - Gatto just went out - that what we have is now the exact version that is copyrighted.  Fairbanks reported chastised over changes.  We have tracked down the original version.  Thank you for your assistance in authenticating this song.

Darren Friday from Kake:  I want to testify in support.  You may have heard the 2nd verse doesn't flow along or isn't singable, so with the chair's ... [Everyone was invited to join Darren in signing the song - both verses.]


Carol Davis - the daughter of the author of the words of the second verse.  My mom and Marie came to Alaska about the same time.  My father was on the final committee to choose the flag.  Marie wrote the first verse with school children in mind so they could read and understand it.  Marie would approve this song.  It is in context of the time when the flag was adopted and first verse was written.  The flag was chosen by the Alaska branch of the American Legion.  Marie Drake was his secretary.  They monitored the flag contest.  Aug. 1 was the deadline and the commitee voted on it that month and the legislature adopted in in May.

Ramras:  We've been joined by Rep. Edgmon and Millet.  I am a native alaskan born and raised in Alaska.  i believe Rep. Holmes joins me.  Reps. Edmon and Millet are both Alaska Native and native Alaskans.  We want to handle this with respect.  Letter from Village Council Presidents.  "......"  We do not support the passage of the bill as it stands.  We would prefer a comepition of all youth.  We support the goal of including Alaska Native, but feel the words could be constructed in a more appropriate matter."  As chair, I find this friction to be healthy.  I find our differences - rural - urban, Native non-Native.  I'm glad there is not unanimity among all Alaskan Natives.  It's healthy.
ZZZ:  I think a contest in this time may be in conflict.
Connie ??:  Sourdough since 1971.  When first discussed in early 70s, we had talked about a second verse - I wouldn't sing it unless all of us were included - newcomers - they said we should have a contest.  They got back in two weeks and said after discussing it with Native colleagues, they didn't want to seem to be objecting to Sourdoughs and maybe in the future someone would write a second verse.  I spoke to Marie Davis.  So when she finally wroted at age 95.  She decided to do it.  There was not contest for the first verse.  She was the secretary and happened to be a poet.  We should accept this give.  It honors all of us.  We have come here with the help of Alaska Natives.
Ramras:  Thank you.  Anyone else who would like to testify.
Lorraine Houseman on line:  I live in Anchorage, raised in Kodiak.  Calling today in regards to proposal to add verse to flag song.  There's been a lot of representation of everyone and I was really trouble with this and testified before, not only me, but a lot of Alaskans who aren't getting to testify.  I do know it was presented by Fran Ulmer in 1987 and she checked with a lot of people and let them know what was proposed.  She received a lot of "no don't change it" particularly pioneers of Alaska that they didn't want to add anything to our beautiful song.  In the original song it talks about Alaskans dear.  I believe that talks to everyone - not just those who came for the gold.  It also talks about the flag and the intent of Benny Benson.  The big dipper and excited about the contest and excited about Alaska becoming a state.  I wanted to have something from Benny Benson's own words.  ... Doing researh I found some things I'd like to read to show how important it is to people who don't want to change it.  Not racist thing.  Goes deep into our history.  Alaska all of us.
Benny Benson born in Chignik in 1913 and just before he turned 3 his mom died of pneumonia.  Father fisherman, couldn't support three children, with heavy hard took him to orphanage in Unalaska.  Father from Sweden, come as young man, fisherman.  Mom, Russian Aleut.  Went to Jesse lee orphanage and embraced by loving people he admired.  Words from him, recorded on tape by a neighbor of mine who put it in a book form.  I would like to read, so much more to the history and acceptance of this beautiful song.  He graduated from high school in Seward.  1932.  Recording this in 1967 before he died in 1972.  He was getting ready to leave to united with his father:
I had a hard time, holding back tears as I was leading my brother Charlie... and to meet my step mother for the first time.  16 years with Jesse Lee home were among my happiest.  They taught me to love God and my neighbors, respect my elders and care for others.


He was a very humble person ... I can't keep track of what she is saying and what he is saying.
Whenever I hear the Alaska Flag song, I get a tingle down my spine as memories of JL home come to mind.  1955 when I met Marie Drake in Seattle and we were photographed together and I carried that photo with me for many years.


1967 came to Alaska Native Hospital, had leg surgery for circulation problems.  Didn't know if he would leave hospital with leg and foot.  Doctors helped him.  Trying to help everyone else in the hospital.  Interview with Anchorage Daily Times, a portion.


He had gone to a class thinking he'd take up art because he won the contest.  But didn't do well at art.  He said, he tried art on for size, but it wasn't for me.  He works well with his hands and designs small craft.....He thinks the flag song sits next to the national anthem.  I think if it is good enough for him.  He was so proud of that song.  You can't add any more that would honor him.  ONe other thing.  Member of Koniac Native Association....
Ramras:  Lorraine.
Lorraine:  He was part of the American Legion.  I'm opposed to adding to the song.
Ramras:  Your comments are important, and this primer of Benny Benson is good for all of us as we approach the end of the session.  Dermot Cole wrote in Fairbanks.  The blue field...Can't keep up.  I'll link the article later]  Davis added her own interpretation which is different...  Just trying to read into the record both sides as they sit.  Back to testimony in the room.  Rep. Gatto back.
Mayor of ??? Borough:  Exited bout the diversity of Alaska.  I want to take the time to celebrate the rich culture we have.  Tlingit, Haida, Aleut, etc.  The amazing cultures we have and power of the people.  I leave you to your decision and support the original author of the song. 
Ramras: What a lovely hearing we're having today.  I would invite anyone to stay after this for campaign disclosure.
Sherril George, from Angoon, in Juneau for 30 years.  Born 1922, makes me 87 years old.  I came in support of this bill.  Hunting, on top of mountains with my dad.  When I look at the words to this song, I get a feeling, I get a feeling they run pretty deep with the people that wrote them.  Trying to tell others why they fell in love with this land.  I was taught, take cood care of the land it will always feed you.  I'd fill a treap and my dad would watch and say to fill it in with moss.  You learn to love the land.  As I look at these words, the people telling us about the beauty, the moonlight, the stars, love for our land, it kind of throws me when they reject it.  I'm told being rejected because native.  In growing up I was, I spent all my years in Sheldon Jackson, in grade school, and there reading about great atheletes I admired so much.  He's a native of Ohio.  He's not an Indian.  Kind of confuses me.  IN my old age when I'm told that somethings ...we've come a long way, I've seen a lot of changes in Juneau.  We used to come to Juneau.  I'd ask my dad, how come those signs "Whites ONly" in the restaurants.  INt he village you don't feel that.  So I asked my dad.  Had a time to explain.  My dad made friends with people, so I just wanted to say that I'm in favor.  I think these are beautiful words.  I'm always in awe of people that write a song n put words to it.  Love songs, whether for antoher woman and here I know a lot of friends who have come to Alaska, not meaning to live here, but they fell in love with our land.  We should keep working in that directions.  To make this the best in the union.
Ramras:  Mr. George.  Are you a Tlingit?
Whispers in his ear:  You are 100% Tlingit.
Ramras:  My seat mate in House, is Bill Thomas, he gave me a name, it means bed house because I'm in the hotel industry.
Gatto:  I really enjoyed listening to you.  You remind me of someone I want to spend a few hours with my ears just hearing some of your stories.
Ramras:  But not now...
Thank you very much Mr. George.
I am 100% Tlingit, ever since the land claims came about... I have a card that says ... My mother comes from Auk Bay.  There was a huge native settlement there. We were called.  ??

... We have a matrilineal society.  Things are inherited through the mother.  However, my father comes from Sitka.  Whenever I introduce myself I honor my father.  It is out of respect created by my parents.  My mother adored Carol Beery Davis.  When my mother was leaving, she gave her a huge hand crocheted ... As a little girl he looked like a giant.  Both were giants in their respect for Ntive culture.  Not only recognizing, but also giving herself????
Ramras:  Thank you very much.


Name in Tlingit I think.  Speaking in Tlingit.  Any questions?  Laughter
Thank you for the opportunity to say a little bit of hat - my name is Walter Samson - originally from ???, Alaska.  Combat veteran.  I thought it would be good for me to say a few words.  Certainly Alaska is home to all of us.  We've hard the testimony about our diverse culture.  Something we all appreciate.  Time when a community, whether HOONah, or Cordava, ... is given an opportunity to have a say on some of the issues that is discussed at the state level.  I'm referring more to when the fed or state system decides to rename a mountain, that opportunity is not there.  The amendment being discussed here I certainly support.  If you look at the second verse.  The first line talks about Ntives.  We are all Native alaskans.  The third line says cultures, not cultue.  Fourth line says Natives, so we're all native Alaskans.  it refers to all of us.  We are all Alaskans.
So what the amended version ... refers to all of us.  But it represents all of us.  That's what I see.  Thank you for the opportunity.  I didn't plan to come, but I came down to peek.
Ramras. Thank you.  We've been joined by Rep. Gardner.
Close public testimony.  Thank all of you for recentring us.  We get cught up in things.  When I reflect on this, I'll remember this testimony.  It left an indelible impression on me.  Bring discussion back to our committee.
Lynn:  As military veteran I've lived all over the country.  We have the best I recall of other states.  I don't recall other states where people stand for their song.  On  par with the national anthem.  PEOPLE give special respect here.
Gatto:  I think Walter really hit on a solid point.  The mountain was called Denali.  Then some dude chnged it to McKinley.  Now here's the question.  If you indeed to get Denali back as the name.  Would you think it credible to call it Denali-Mckinley.  Or do you want to think it should just be Denali.  Am I the only one here who treasures history?  I think the Alaska song, Alaska bird, etc. The Alaska insect is the four spotted dragonfly.  We shouldn't add another dragonfly.  We want to retain the history or it is not history.  I'm a no vote here.  I'm for history.  I want to do that for this state.  I will stand pat.  I like the song.  I'm here to protect the first verse.  IF you change the song, we no longer have the first verse.  Anyone can sing the second verse, they can.  this is a change to your history that I'm here to protect.  You can call me an idiot if you want.  But I'm here to protect the history.
Ramras:  Public testimony has been closed.  Let me explain.  We can adopt a motion to move the bill.  If someone objects.  There is a roll call to advance either to the next committee or to the floor.  The motion we did today, by doing a Judiciary substitute.  We have the original language.  As we conclude the discussion today.  The chair will ask for a motion to move it from the committee.  Yes or no votes to advance it to the floor of the state house.  it doesn't have a fiscal note so it would go to the floor.  Do our visitors, Reps Edgmon or Millett?
Edgmon:  Thank you for the privilege to sit in on this meaningful meeting.  I was born in Dillingham, a singer, in a native household, heartfelt testimony, of many Alaska Natives, this whole subject of adding a verse has risen above merely acting a second act.  I want to be real careful to caution for people to characterize this as pro-Native or urban or rural,b ecause it shouldn't be.  If we are in fact to amend the song, turning to the ABCP letter, we should do it in a way the whole Native community embraces.  I've never heard the second verse sung.  I would support, I'm Alaska native, know music, not comfortable with metering.  It should transcend SE Alaska.  If we do want to rewrite the second verse, with respect to Davis and you in the room, we should respect Alaska Natives, five of the state corporations were Alaska Native corps, we can argue Natives haven't gotten their due.  I'm very proud of my heritage.  I'm comfortable with the first verse, not oppoosed to second verse.  Let's take it to a statewide level, maybe  a contest.  Whatever happens, I hope hard feelings should go away.
Millett:  I'm also proud of my heritage.  I grew up with my 1/2 inupiaq grandmother.. I've never seen such a discussion about an issue.  It really touches a core with folks.  Talking about the Alaska state flag.  I've spoken to Alaskans across the state.  Amazing to me here discussing a song that wasn't meant to be divisive.  With some people who have strong sense of history.  I thought, what would Benny Benson,  what would the author think about changing the language of the song.  I thought, the state has evolv, it hqw changed.  I go back to what the Mayor has said.  A lot of cultures have called Alaska home.  While Alaska Natives have come a long way.  There has been a lot of healing.  I think the song is perfect.  I don't think they aren't recognized and not acknowledged in the song we have.  It has raised the dialogue to where it should be.
Ramras:  I would encourage both of you to considr the Judiciary Commitee next session
Holmes:  I share your comments, this is fascinating.  Clearly a heartfelt issue on both sides.  I've listened intently.  Because of all the interesting views, I'd like to see it moved forward and discussed on the House floor by all.
Ramras:  Other comments?
Gruenberg:  As a relative newcome of 40 years in the state.  I voted for this when it was first on the floor and will vote for it again.  We need to come together as Alaskans.  All the things tht bring us together can be framed so the split us apart.  If we keep laughing and crying together and succeeding and failing together.
Ramras; Motion
Roll:  Gatto no  Holmes yes  lYnn - yes  Gruenberg yes  Herron yes  Ramras yes
5-1  passes committee.

Gatto:

State Song and Campaign Expenditure in House Judiciary

I got to the Capitol as a new group of Alaska Americorps were being sworn in by Lt. Gov. Craig Campbell.  (At least that's who someone said it was.  I'm embarrassed to say I didn't know.  I'll check the pictures later.)  And the the whole legislature came out for a group picture.  And the sun was shining nicely.

Now I'm in Capitol 120, House Judiciary's room.  It is full with audience to support the adoption of the State Song's second verse which I've written about before.  I don't have time to put in links and pictures right now.  Will add them in later.
1:41pm  Ramras opens the meeting.  I'll add to this soon.

CONTINUED - the testimony was very long and very emotional.  I've created another post to cover it.  The committee is now - 3:24pm - discussing SB 284 - the campaign expenditure bill and Chuck Dunnagan is testifying about the section that addresses US subsidiaries v foreign nationals involvement in the statutes.  He's representing the Resource Development Council of Alaska, Inc.


UPDATE:  Here's how the committee meeting ended.

SB 284

Chuck Dunnagan - strongly argued that section five of of Sec. 10

Jasone Brune - Executive Director or RDC - Corporations spend a great deal of money in Alaska.  

Giving examples of foreign companies or Alaska subsidiaries with foreign nationals as officers would be prohibited from defending themselves  in initiative fights. 

Gruenberg:  Your basic argument is that it is unconstitutional to do this and I would like to know if there is any precedent to support this position. 

Brune:  I will assure that you have an answer tomorrow. 

Ramras:  We will continue tomorrow at 10am.  Holly Hill, are you with us?
Hill:  Here online to answer questions.


Adjuorn for the day. 3:46pm. 

Through the Chair

Every organization has its own jargon. The Alaska State Legislature is no exception. There are lots of acronyms and abbreviations, but the words that I still find to be peculiar are "through the chair." When people testify to committees, particularly state employees and legislative staffers who are at committee meetings frequently, when they address a committee member, they often start out with, "Through the chair."

Click on the yellow button with the black arrow to hear some examples from the legislature.
[Sorry, Jamglue along with all my audio, shut down, so link doesn't work.]
Through the Chair Mix by AKRaven[

I'd never heard this particular usage before and even two months into this I still find it a bit strange. Admittedly, I haven't been to other state legislatures before and haven't heard that much Congressional debate on C-Span. I did read Robert's Rules of Order carefully in Junior High School when I was on the school council and I don't remember it from there.

In fact, I could find nothing online that suggests the use of "Through the Chair" as actual words to say.  They do say you should go through the chair, but not that you should say it.

Roberts Rules for Dummies:

Speaking through the chair

When addressing another member, you never go wrong by speaking through the chair. Refrain from using the member's name if you can avoid it. Respect is conveyed by depersonalizing comments made in debate. For example, "Mr. Chairman, does the member who just spoke have information on the cost of his proposal?" works much better than, "Dang it Fred, have you thought about how much your stupid idea is gonna cost us?" Formality has its benefits.

A British site called Academic Assistant tells us:

In formal meetings, the convention is 'speaking through the chair'.  That means it is considered rude to speak unless the chair invites you to do so. – Past practice might help here, but if it is a new committee or meeting, try to judge the level of formality to know if these conventions are strictly imposed. For example, do the members use first names or are they more formal? If you are not sure, ask the secretary of the meeting for their advice.

The Arizona Foundation for Legal Services and Education offers us an example in their
tips on Speaking Before a Legislative Committee"
 

When you speak to a legislative committee you must "go through the chair." This means you must first address the committee by saying, "Mr./Madam Chairman, committee members." This shows that you respect the chairman's authority.
The legislature records its committee hearings so you must first identify yourself for the record. Tell the committee your name and what group you represent. Remember to go through the chair. For example, a speaker would start by saying, "Madam Chairman, committee members, my name is Amber Smith. I represent Disneyland." After introducing yourself, you may give the committee your comments.
If a member interrupts you with a question he should go through the chair to ask the question and you must go through the chair to respond to the question. You must continue going through the chair on every question. For example:

Amber Smith:" . . .are too low and should be . . ."
Member Gonzales (interrupting): "Madam Chairman, Ms. Smith, so you feel the taxes are too low?"
Chairmen: "Ms. Smith."
Amber Smith "Madam Chairman, Representative Gonzales, yes. We feel the taxes are too low."
Chairmen: "Mr. Gonzales."
Member Gonzales: "Madam Chairman, Ms. Smith, would you be satisfied if we raised your taxes by 2%?"
Chairman: "Ms. Smith."
Amber Smith: "Madam Chairman, Representative Gonzales, we will not be satisfied with anything less than a 5% tax increase.

When you finish speaking to the committee, say that you will be happy to answer any questions. If anyone has questions, answer them by going through the chair. If not, thank the committee and return to your seat.

But to use the words "Through the Chair"?  I'm guessing other examples might be out there, but I can't find them.

Emily Nenon from the Cancer Society

There are still lots of people down here pushing legislation that is important to them.  Here's Emily from the American Cancer Society talking about two projects I bet you know nothing about.  

Palin's Wake - Personnel Board & Duty Station Bills - Plus Juneau Gets Replaced

I've watched two bills debated in the last two days that are before the legislature because of Sarah Palin.  Yesterday, the House voted to expand the Personnel Board (HB 348) and change how its members are appointed because of the questions raised when the numerous complaints against then Gov. Palin's  were heard by the three member board she appointed.  For fifty years of statehood, this had never become a problem.  That's not to say that there hadn't been a governor with problems - Gov. Sheffield was almost impeached - but there had never been an issue with the Personnel Board and a governor.

Then today, the House State Affairs Committee heard SB 244 to officially designate Juneau the governor's duty station.  After lots of questioning by the committee members it seems that this bill would change very little other than to make it law what has been custom.  It does clarify that the governor's base is Juneau.  The only thing I understood this to really clarify is this:

For calculating travel allowances (including lodging and meals), Juneau will be considered the governor's residence. 

What does this change?  Not much.  If a future governor decides not to move his/her family to the mansion in Juneau, the governor cannot be reimbursed for living in his/her own residence somewhere else.  But that was the case before.  This bill simply clarifies this.

The governor gets a cook in the mansion who buys and prepares all food at no cost to the governor.  But when traveling, the governor can claim a $60 a day food allowance.  Even if living in his/her own residence elsewhere.  This hasn't changed, the committee was told by Administration representative Kevin Brooks and Sen. Stedman staffer Darwin Peterson.  Palin did claim per diem and the state determined it was taxable according to a Feb. 2009 ADN article by Lisa Demer. But the article says the payments were for "meals and incidentals," not for lodging. 

What about if the governor drives from his residence to the Anchorage governor's office?  No change.  The state gives the governor a car and fills the tank. 

Gov. Palin painted herself as a maverick who doesn't do things like everyone else does.  She wasn't going to live in Juneau as her main residence so her kids could stay in their own schools.  Except Track did his last year in Michigan and Bristol went to school in Anchorage.  

People have asked before whether being mavericky has some larger state purpose or it's just doing things that make her own life easier.  They've pointed out that living in Juneau is part of the job of being governor of Alaska.  One could argue that given the travel a governor should do, it might come out cheaper if one is based in Anchorage.  I can't tell.  But I do know that the legislature is working this year to clean up things that became issues for the first time in our state's history, because of how Gov. Palin did things.

One more thing that Sen. Egan probably did not anticipate when he signed on as a co-sponsor to the bill.  Rep. Gatto asked why the bill made "Juneau," instead of "the State Capitol" the official duty station.  Rep. Johnson proposed a successful amendment to change "Juneau" to "the State Capitol" in the title and text of the bill.


Note on Photo:  We can do anything these days with Photoshop and you are right to always be suspicious, but this is an undoctored picture I got earlier in the session of the governor's mansion with a moving van in front.  

Campaign Expenditure Reform - Disclaimer Audio Ads or Not?

When HB 409 got tabled in House Judiciary on St. Patrick's Day people gave me different explanations.  This is one of the most important bills this year - it's the reaction to the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision which ended limits on corporate and union 'independent expenditures' in elections.  Alaska's laws ban such expenditures and so those laws are no longer valid.  But since they were banned, there are no disclosure laws either.

So that's what this bill is about.  There were a couple of bills in the House on this and one in the Senate.  Judiciary was the last stop in the House.  If it got passed on the House floor before the Senate bill got passed, then the House Bill would be the one to be selected.


But the House/Senate rivalry wasn't enough for Committee Chair Ramras.  He held the House Bill.  So, the explanation that makes most sense to me is this one:

If he holds onto the House bill, the last stop for the Senate bill will be the House Judiciary where he can make the changes he wants or kill the bill.  And that's where we are now.  SB arrived in the House this week.  And Chairman Ramras has clearly expressed his concerns, or at least the ones he wants us to know about.  They are:

1.  Will the requirement that people who pay for the bill must be identified in ads that have audio (radio and tv) mean that advertisers will have to spend a third of their paid for time for the disclaimer?
2.  If so, will this cause such advertisers to advertise in other media?

3.  Another concern he expressed was whether disclaimer might dampen discourse.
4.  He also framed this as protecting the little guy.  He's concerned about people like those who, in his words, killed his science building at UAF by lobbying for the UAA sports center.


What I heard everyone at State Affairs concerned about was that last minute ads would come out labeled as "Friends of Good" and nobody would know who paid for them.  Rep. Johnson was concerned about the audio announcements requirements.

So today a lot of time was spent on questions like:

1.  If BP pays for an ad, and the top three contributors would have to be announced, would the ad have to say "Paid for by BP, BP, and BP?" [@102 on the tape]
2.  If the Teamsters pays for an ad, would they have to list all of their members?

Are these serious questions or are these attempts to distract this to silly examples?  Department of Law attorney John Ptacin, if BP is paying for the ad, then it can say "Paid for by BP" plain and simple and it takes about one second to say.  The same thing for the Teamsters.

The real problem is when shell groups are set up like "Alaskans for Jobs" a group nobody knows.  It's groups like this that will be required to list their top three contributors.  And I don't have any problem with them doing it fast - but intelligibly.

Rep. Gruenberg argued today, as he did at State Affairs, that on radio you have to have an audio ad.  On television you need it as well, because sight-impaired people as well as people who listen to tv while doing other things are much more likely to catch the audio disclaimer than a written one.

It's clear that nobody is going to say, "Yeah, my corporate supporters can now spend all they want."  Instead they are saying, "We all believe that there must be disclosure and disclaimer"  [As I'm writing this I'm hearing a drug ad on tv that spent a looooong time listing the possible side effects of the drug.  This doesn't seem to stop the drug companies from advertising on television.] but a disclaimer of ten seconds in a thirty second ad
 is not reasonable. 

Ramras also said he was for the little guy.  The permanent corporations and unions, he said, can deal with requirement to keep records for six years.  But spontaneous short term organizations formed to fight one bond issue don't have the infrastructure to keep records for six years.


Below the audio are my rough notes and you can listen to the audio to get  exact words.



SB 284 starts at 45:43.


2:15  - I was having computer hiccups.  Sen. French is explaining bill SB 284.  The only unreported category left is individuals (actual people) making billboard or newspaper ads or other print ads are exempt. 
If you donate $50 to an independent expenditure against a candidate, your name will be reported to APOC, but not your occupation.
Ramras:  We would like the same rule applying to candidates will apply to this.  Page. 3 lines 16 to 20.

[Photo:  Sen French testifying. Reps Gatto and Holmes in background.]
Anyone giving under $100 there wouldn’t be an APOC record.  Something we’d want to flag for purposes the way environmental groups, unions etc. aggregate small contributions.  I want to be sure the tiny pin hammer has nails as does the sledge hammer. 

French:  Section 5:  Remnant of old bill we didn’t address. 
Sec. 6 - True source is a term of art in world of election reporting
Sec. 7 - defines officers.

Ramras:  Sec. 5 page 4 line 2.  Do not apply - for someone handing out flyers. 
French:  To be exempt from reporting - this is already in law - if total expenditures less than $500 total on billboards, signs, flyers. 
Ramras:  Can I spend $2000?
French:  $500 and no cents on billboards, signs, ??
Subsection 7:  defines officer better.
Subsection 8:  requires entities to establish campaign accounts.  We decided that they need to set up such an account to better monitor expenditures.
Subsection 9:  Defines who can make an expenditure.
Ramras:  SS 8:  how long do we hold these records
French: 6 years
Ramras:  Why so long?  I understand for corporation.  What if advocates for a sports complex… I don’t mind for unions, corps, environmental groups?  Are we giving the same for Sports events.  They have a narrow focus.  They scuttled my Life Sciences building in Fairbanks.
French:  Defer to Ptacin. 
Ramras:  You see my point - a surviving unit, not a group that is set up for a short time.  I don’t want people who become activists for a short time and not to be permanent.  We want people to participate and don’t want to dampen their enthusiasm because of record keeping requirements. 
Gatto:  $250 or less.  Does that mean or more?
French:  I had the same questions
Herron:  More overall question - State of Alaska or public entityt is considred a person as well, so State or Municipality cannot advocate for a GO bond. 
French:  They can advocate, but whether they can spend public money is another question. 
Concern about foreign corporations.  This provision drawn from federal law.  We don’t have to wait for federal elections commission to jump in, APOC could do it more quickly should a foreign national spend money n our elections 
Ramras:  What about mining companies that have American subsidiaries that pay taxes here. 
French:  Subsection 5, page 5.  List of people who cannot participate:
Foreign national, etc. 
Five:  Domestic Subsidiary.  Royal Dutch Shell and Shel Alaska.  Domestic Subsidiary.  If subsidiary is acting independently, considered an American comapny, no problem.
Ramras:  I haven’t a clue who is paying for the ads for the Pebble Partnership.  But our discussions with them make it clear the mothership is in the picture.  John Shively, what standard is conferring v. taking instruction?  Would you be prohibiting Pebble Prtnership if Shively’s organization takes instruction from the mothership.  Would this prevent …?
French:  Your question raises a series of proof problems that will always be difficult for APOC.
Ramras:  There we are again with the fear of ambiguity.  And ambiguity is construed against one party.  Where I find ambiguity in this bill, it seems to be construed against the damping of discourse.  I’m not interested in dampening discourse.  I’ m the 90 day session guy.  I like the public in discussion.  #5 of Sec. 10, there are ambiguities and if they dampen opportunities for discourse.  I’m trying to send signals of what I think are the right and wrong directions to go.

[Photo:  from front counterclockwise: Reps. Lynn, Gruenberg, Herron, and Ramras.]

French:  This bill is one of the great philosophical debates.
Sec. 11:
Sec.12 amends to clarify that a person may not expend anonymously except for already discussed sections.
Sec. 13.  [all the info that has to be provided]
Secs 13 and 14 will be the subject for much debate.
Herron:  I think that is where there will be some conversation.  Need to carve out difference between print and electronic, and audio.  If we can figure out how to say on tv and radio ad, somewhat to have five second profound statement, if I was listening or seeing, I would clearly know, rather some vague name and address.  I look forward to that discussion. 
Ramras:  Ptacin and others what others around this table pay about $10 for natural gas, Rep. Herron pays a lot and we pay $23/ in Fairbanks.  When we had hearings in FBKs, I had several businesses who put in several 1000 each and made impassioned speech to hear our plea.  That will be a test for me, to see whether that survives this legislation.  I’m less interested in the clash of titans - Pebble Mine and Anti - or Union and Non-Union, but interested in preserving the right of the public to genuinely and spontaneously participate in public square. 
Our standard was to protect the smallest amongst us.  In our effort to protect against the titans, we don’t hurt the little folks. 

French:  Disclaimers.  We were careful in 14 o split out requirements lines 25-31 to print and visual aspects of tv.  For radio we shortened it to alleviate the problem.  I’ve done it with a stop watch - his disclaimer wasn’t entirely consistent with the bill, and we dropped that to make it more succinct.  My concern is now enormous expenditures through an org called Alaskans for Jobs that was funded by Exxon, etc.  It took about ten or 12 seconds out of 30.
Ramras:  not acceptable to me.
French:  SEc. 15 - timing of the reports - ten days after report with APOC.  Your bill had stricter view of that.
SEc. 16 amends to require all persons required to report to save for 6 years.
Ramras:  Can we concentrate on deleted language in Sec. 17.  Large groups that send up funds for a little while. 
French:  In The past that would have been a non-group entity or group. 
Ramras:  Mr. Ptacin can we incorporate, or do you think it’s covered.
French:  Same on line 19, since we’ve expansively defined person and included everyone.
Ramras: I think we are fitting 9s and 10s into 14 size shoes. 
French:  This bill doesn’t change anything, it’s just trying to put the new players into what already exists.

18 - what happens if you break the law.  Class B misdemeanor.  Now no ambiguity ???
20 is the act.  Overview of the bill.

Lynn:  Is there separability?
French:  My understanding is every bill we have has separability.
Ramras:  Can we bring up Scott Smith and then Mr. Ptacisn.  Did you plan to stay for the week?
Ptacin.  It may be a good idea to stick around. 

Scott Smith:  Alaska Broadcasting Association and myself.  33% owner of K??? on Kodiak Island. 
1.  Audio disclosure in bill.  All broadcasters fully respect the need for full disclosures.  There was  a problem with auto leasing disclosure - because of the disclosure requirements, there was zero spent on radio, it went to tv because they could put it visually.  We are so crippled because of the disclosure that we just lose ads.  They’ll go to newspapers, tv, or websites.

2.  Brevity.  Sell in 30 to 60 secs.  I did produce a simulation.  My professional DJ could do it just less than 13 secs.  for little guy, that’s a big chunk spent on who they are. 

3. It’s possible if you force that much of their discourse is in disclaiming you will dampen discourse.

Gatto:  When you measured this was it in speed up or regular? 
Smith:  Hard read - not lightening.
Gatto:  Is there an FCC requirement for speed.
Smith:  ‘reasonable’
Holmes:  If you took that into speed like Cal Worthington commercial, do you know how long?
Smith:  Trim to maybe 9 before it was unreasonable?
Lynn:  Any studies on how much they might lose?
Smith:  Impossible to say.  Concern is great enough to fly me down here.  If you were going to talk about enormous companies, it would be a different strata of tolerance than with small.  Some are big enough and will spend no matter what.
Gruenberg:  Answering Gatto’s concern:  three places p. 6 line 29 for visual - communications should be clearly id’s.  P. 7 deals with line 26-28 - easily discernible.  P. 8 line 6 audio:  must be read in a manner that is easily heard.  I’m not sure it shouldn’t be understood. 
Ramras:  Rocking and smiling.  Thinking about what you said. 
Gatto:  Have you ever surveyed, not candidates, campaigns, whether the public gives a rat about this?
Smith:  No.  But there are FCC requirements.
Ramras:  Scott, as the president of the ABA, I’d like to take the bills and put a circle around them about whet they are about.  One of the discussions is about disclosure but the other large issue for me is discourse.  Are we opening or dampening.  Managing amounts to unions, pro industry groups, pro environment, large players.
But as someone in business, when groups come to you = we’ve talked about Shell and Pebble, that’s the large people, but I’ talking about the boiler people or UAA sports people.  How often approached by these groups for ads.

Smith:  volume of groups that approach?  We can see in Muni election, have 5 to 9 entities working different items, whether school bonds, and - number of private groups.  In major statewide elections, bring out larger groups both in and outside the state. 

Ramras:  Take me to Kodiak.  This August, we’ll have Parental Consent
Lynn:  Parental notification.
Ramras:  parental notification, etc. general obligation bond.  Will you hae local groups in Kodiak and statewide groups from Anchorage?
Smith:  Yes, it is a reasonable amount of revenue that keeps people employed. 
Ramras:  Any questions?  I have plenty.
If Royal Dutch Shell wanted to… if the section requiring three people, then who would be the three people from Shell.  If the producers, three corps, who would it be.  If the Unions who would it be.  How would we group the three top people fro diffierent organizations
Smith:  Great question.  Asked to come ask if we had to name more than the top contributor.  I would say you could just say the company name. 
Ramras:  What if law says top three.  Do you say: BP, BP, BP?  If a union and not a consortium.  Teamsters 959 or pick the members?
Smith:  I hope union name enough.  The names of the people wouldn’t mean much. 
Ramras:  3:10.  Members:  your call.  Do you want to bring up Ptacin now?

Ptacin:  Dept. of Law. 
Gruenberg:  For a while my office was trying to track cases where CU was discussed to see how fed and state courts were utilizing that case.  We stopped three weeks ago.  Anything in last three weeks.
Ptacin:  two. 
1.  Provision didn’t allow people to group assemble and limit money they could bring in.  A district court case, doesn’t impact analysis for this bill
2.  Different limits on soft money, we don’t address that.
3.  Case coming to SC which would extend anonymous speech to new areas, that could hae an impact.
Gruenbertg:  in ideas what the areas would be?
Ptacain:  Signatures in ballot measure could be withheld from the public.  A distinction that may or may not stand.  Argument at end of month, probably decision in late June.
Herron:  So you can advertise in all sorts of print.  You have space, but in TV and radio, when it comes to declaring who, is there some way we can do it where Joe Schmuckateli is against this”  rather than some vague name and their address?  I’m not talking about print or anything written.
Ptacin:  Distinction between disclaimer and disclosure.  Telling the messenger they have to deliver the message a certain way. 
Herron:  Say, 30 secs.  Not how, but if it takes 12 seconds, 13 seconds to explain why you bought the ad. 
Ptacin:  I’ll testify on Friday.  I think it requires more time. 
a.  I’m for this or against.
b.  this organization
Not the same neutral stuff as paid for by. 
Ramras:  for me it seems to be about disclosure and, in the interest of fuller disclosure are we dampening discourse.  I understand the reaction to Cu as it relates to disclosure but I don’t want it to impair discourse. 
Ptacin:  APOC v. Stevens - case 4-5 years ago.  If ambiguity in statues, enforcibilty is harder.  Dampening discourse.  This is the debate after CU.  which allowed entities that couldn’t speak before and now they can.  Does a disclaimer law overly burden that newly found right. 
Ramras:  If we are trying to regulate a right that has been restored to persons, like introducing pike into the lake, those pike will eventually consume the other fish.  Will our regulations consume all the other fish?.
If BP has an ad, who are there three highest contributors.
Ptacin:  If BP Alaska, from their own corporate treasury. 
Ramras:  They wouldn’t have to disclose their three top contributors?
Ptacin:  If there are no top five contributors you don’t have to list the top five.
Ramras:  I’m a lay person, that’s not how I read it.  But people are nodding.  What about teamsters?  They have lots of members how would they do it?
Ptacin:  They could just say teamsters, unless there are lots of other groups joining them. 
Adjourned 3:20pm.

House Judiciary - On Crime Evidence and Campaign Expenditure

(H)JUDICIARY		STANDING COMMITTEE *
Apr 07 Wednesday 1:00 PM		CAPITOL 120
+	SB 284	CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES	TELECONFERENCED
+	SB 110	PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE/DNA I.D. SYSTEM	TELECONFERENCED
+		Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled	TELECONFERENCED

THIS IS MY VERY ROUGH NOTES.  DON'T RELY ON THIS.  I'LL POST THE AUDIO WHEN IT IS AVAILABLE.  

1:35pm Senator French is walking the committee through SB110 on Perservation of Evidence/DNA ID System.  The meeting opened with Chair Ramras warmly welcoming Sen. French and praising him and his office for being so easy to work with.

There are a number of people on the list to testify, but Rep. Ramras also wants as much time as possible for SB 284.  This is not a bill I've prepared for.

Online testimony:
Mr. Oberly, Executive Director of the Innocence Project:  The task force reviewing this will be helpful and police will hold up decisions until the task force does its study.

Jeffry Mittman, ACLU Alaska:  We support this bill as well.

Gruenberg:  Concern about length of time evidence is kept.  His concerns were with who decides the crime is solved.
French:  The concern that someone would peremptorily declaring crime solved, is covered.
Ramras:  We know of Rep. Gruenberg's propensity for belts and suspenders.
French:  These issues will be looked at by the task force.
Gruenberg:  It looks like you are right relating to biological evidence.  We're talking about non-biological evidence.  The house bill had this on p. 3 beginning of line 7.  The two bills seem to treat the non-biological evidence seperately.
Ramras:  As I recall there was a focus on biological evidence.
Gruenberg:  The bills themselves deal with both biological and non-biological evidence.  Will we have any fall out between now and when the task force makes its report.
French:  In the six years I was with the Prosecutors I am unaware of anyone disposing of evidence and I would be stunned if it happened in the next year.
Ramras:  Chair is satisfied with the discussion.
Gruenberg:  Is there anyone else concerned?  I don't see it among other committee members.

Gatto:  An agency ... may destroy biological evidence if ....   - that's not a complete activity - mailing a notice - makes no requirement of the recipient ever receiving the letter.
French:  I think the certified delivery implies that it was received.  If you continue reading - no person notifies after 120 days after receiving the notice...
Gatto:  Line 27 page 3.  Key word is mailed.  Doesn't matter they got the wrong address, or person can't read English.  If you wanted to have a certainty the letter was received and failed to act is not something the agency can control.

Heron:  We did amend that in other hearings and require a receipt.
French:  Would a proof of receipt help?   That seems reasonable.
For completeness.  I appreciate your desire to move this down track.

Language requiring applicants to pay costs of evidence retrieval have been romoved.  We've gotten approval/acceptance from department of law.
Timeliness provisions also changed.  p. 15 - were three years.  Not from this day forward, but looking back.  People now in prison have ten years after we pass the bill.  Otherwise people have unlimited amount of time.
Gruenberg: I'm still troubled by same issue.  If they got the perpetrator and say the crime is solved and destroy the evidence.  Now prosecution could say we are permitted to do this under this law.

French:  I don't share your concern.
Ramras:  Would you care to do a member swap from now to April 18? 
French:  [Something about the person not admitting guilt.  I'm not sure what this is about.]
Deleting attorney affidavit.  ????
Requiring evidence ???? deleted.
Page 8 lines 22-27 - right out of the federal bill.  We leaned on the Fed bill which is called the Gold Standard.  It was passed by Republican Congress and signed by Pres. GWB.

Gatto:  Subsection C.  Applicant did not admit or concede guilt under oath.  Admission of guilt is not not acceptable as a plea for this bill?
French:  What you'll hear from public defenders is that some people plead guilty with regularity.  They take a fall for someone else, doesn't understand English, lots of reasons to plead guilty falsely.

Ramras:  Two conceptual amendments = #1 page. 14.  Anyone else who wants to testify?
Public testimony closed.
Conceptual Amendment #1  - add to duties of task force -
Gruenberg:  think that should go in subsection D, lines 2?
Ramras:  Withdraw #1
#2 standards for return of property added to duties of task force [changed where to add it]
#3 page 7 line 31-p. 8 line 3 - subparagraph D3 page 7 lines 10-14  should conform (I have no idea what this is about).  Withdraw.
Holmes: CA #4 p. 7 line 31 delete 31-p. 8 line three and replace with applicant did not admit or guilt in ...except for the court in the interest of justice... nolo contendr plea is not an admission ... that is currently on p. 7 lines 14.
Passes.
Gatto:  CA #5 - p. 3 line 27 - return receipt requested  passes

Passes.  Concurrent resolution adopted.  At ease.

That's it for CSSB 110.  At ease and then I'll be back for SB 284.

Here's the audio. You can get the exact words used. CSSB 110 is the first 42 minutes.

SB 284 at House Judiciary - Campaign Expenditure Bill Up in House Judiciary

This bill will be heard today in House Judiciary.

 CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 284(FIN)

A BILL FOR AN ACT ENTITLED "An Act relating to state election campaigns, the duties of the Alaska Public Offices Commission, the reporting and disclosure of expenditures and independent expenditures, the filing of reports, and the identification of certain communications in state election campaigns; prohibiting expenditures and contributions by foreign nationals in state elections; and providing for an effective date."


BACKGROUND
The Campaign Expenditure bill that was necessitated by the US Supreme Court decision on Citizens United which invalidated some restrictions on corporate independent expenditures in elections.


Alaska prohibited corporations and unions from making contributions to candidates, so the laws requiring disclosures and disclaimers on such expenditures for corporations don't exist.  We do have such restrictions on individuals.  So, essentially, the bills that began in both the Senate and House were aimed at requiring disclosure and disclaimers on contributions and on independent expenditures on advertising supporting candidates directly or indirectly.

KEY TERMS
Terminology is tricky here.  The most critical terms, I think, are PERSON and INDIVIDUAL.

PERSON is an all encompassing term that includes individual people AND corporations and unions.  The key here is that on the federal level, corporations have many of the rights of persons.  Even though this is not our everyday usage of the language, it's how the word is used legally.  An example of how this shows up in the bill is:

prepare and publish a manual setting out uniform methods of
bookkeeping and reporting for use by persons required to make reports and statements under this chapter and otherwise assist all persons [CANDIDATES, GROUPS, AND INDIVIDUALS] in complying with the requirements of this chapter;  [underline bold is new language, in [BRACKETS AND CAPS] is old deleted language.]

INDIVIDUAL is a human being, not an organization.


KEY ASPECTS OF THE BILL

REPORTING AND DISCLOSING - Here's what has to be reported:

(e) Each person [THE REPORT] required to report under (d) of this section shall file a full report in accordance with AS 15.13.110(g) on a form prescribed by the commission. The report must contain
(1) the name, address, principal occupation, and employer of the individual filing the report;
(2) [, AND] an itemized list of all expenditures made, incurred, or authorized by the person;
(3) the name of the candidate or the title of the ballot proposition or question supported or opposed by each expenditure and whether the expenditure is made to support or oppose the candidate or ballot proposition or question;
(4) the name and address of each officer and director, when
applicable;
(5) the aggregate amount of all contributions made to the person, if any, for the purpose of influencing the outcome of an election; for all contributions to the person that exceed $100 in the aggregate in a year, the date of the contribution and amount contributed by each contributor; and for a contributor
(A) who is an individual, the name, address, principal occupation, and employer of the contributor; or
(B) that is not an individual, the name and address of the contributor and the name and address of each officer and director of the contributor [EXPENDITURES. THE REPORT SHALL BE FILED WITH THE COMMISSION NO LATER THAN 10 DAYS AFTER THE EXPENDITURE IS MADE].

And individual (that is a human being) acting independently of other persons (humans, organizations, corporations, unions) IS EXEMPTED from some of the reporting and disclosure requirements if the expenditures are under $500 for billboards or printed matter.


There is also an attempt to get past the shadow group names like "Alaskans for Health and Prosperity" and require identification like,

(4) the name and address of each officer and director, when
applicable;

There is also a section that mimics federal language prohibiting foreign nationals from contributing.  The discussions I heard suggested that this would allow the state to take actions when the feds might not want to bother.

There is also a section requiring written and audio disclosure on radio and tv ads.  The broadcast people seem to be strongly opposed to this because they believe it will cut what people can say in the ads because the time it will take to do the disclosure.

The meeting is starting now, so I'll post this now and then blog through the meeting.

CSHB 348 - Personnel Board Changes - Passes House

Yesterday I went to the House floor to hear the debate and vote on HB 348.  It had been defeated 19-18 on Monday and a call for reconsideration had it available to be brought back up yesterday.  But they postponed it another day.

This bill responds to the awkward situation of former Gov. Palin being evaluated on various charges by the Personnel Board made up of her appointees.  The bill enlarges the board from three members to five.  It also has the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court giving three names to the governor who then chooses from those three.  It also puts restrictions on the kinds of jobs or other conflicts the members can have.

The bill was sponsored by Rep. Lynn and basically supported by the Democrats.  However, the Democrats wanted an amendment that anticipated a show-down between the Chief Justice and the Governor.  The amendments - there were several variations - would have limited how often the Governor could request more nominees if the Governor didn't like the names she got and/or explicitly said the Chief Justice didn't have to give more names.

People felt strongly about this on both sides and this dispute was the reason the bill failed on the floor the first time because the supporters of the amendments voted against the bill.  It does appear that today they were persuaded that the bill, without the amendment, is better than the status quo.

The video gives a sense of the floor of the House as Rep. Lynn promotes his bill.




Now it has 12 days to pass in the Senate.

Artist Rie Muñoz Visits House

One

One of Alaska's best known artists, Rie Muñoz, talks to Rep. Bob Lynn while her daughter-in-law Rep. Cathy Muñoz watches on. 

Here she talks with Rep. Berta Gardner with her granddaughter sitting next to her. 

We have a great print of hers at home and when I described it to her she told me the story of when she painted it.  I'll put that up when we get back to Anchorage and I can show you the picture as well. 

It's Not Easy To Find Out How Legislators Voted

This probably looks a bit intimidating, but Alaskan readers should take a bit of time here.  This walks you through step by step.  I'm really trying to seduce as many of you as possible into playing with BASIS and finding out what your legislature is up to.  [Update:  Also be sure to check out Alaska Education Update's comment below on getting to the Journal page from bill search.]

BASIS (the legislative website) has a lot of information. One thing I've looked for and failed to find is how legislators voted. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to pull up a bill and see how they voted? Or to pull up a specific legislator and see how he or she voted on a list of different bills? But I couldn't find that sort of information.

So I asked a BASIS technician and he confirmed what I'm looking for just isn't there.  You need to go to the House and Senate Journals which are the minutes of each day's floor session. That, he said, is the only place on BASIS where you can find the voting records.  You have to look, day by day, bill by bill.

You can find these a couple of ways.  Here's the easiest for me.


BASIS - HOUSE JOURNAL

This is the "Bills & Laws" tab on BASIS (see the white tab on top.)

If you click on the picture, it will link you to that page (the url is in red text.)    Go ahead, click on the image. This is your government.  You believe in democracy, so participate!  Use right click (Mac users use the control key) and open a new tab or new window.  Then go to Journal Text Display (circled on the right.)  That gets you to this page:

Leave House Journal marked.  Then slide down to the bottom of that list to
"Journal Date Range from"   and put in the dates that you want.  I've got it set for
040510.  I know, it's a little clunky, but at least this one is easy to figure out.    That will get you to the House Journal for April 5, 2010 which looks like this:

If you scroll down to page 2021 you'll find the Bills with Third Readings.  (They can't vote until the bill has been read for the third time - it's in the State Constitution.)  Here's the vote on CSHB (Committee Substitute for House Bill) 348.

And that tells you who voted yes and who voted no. 

Now, I've put up yesterday's House Journal because today's isn't up yet.


CRAZY BLOGGERS

There is another way to find out how people voted - find a blogger who posts the votes.  But this service - posting pictures of the votes - is probably a one day event. Here's today's House Votes.

HB 355	CRIMINAL FINES FOR ORGANIZATIONS	PASSD(H) RECON NTCE	04/06/10

This passed, but some members said they hadn't read it, so they voted for it, then voted for reconsideration.  That means they can bring it up again tomorrow if, after reading it, they have a problem.

This one has to go to the Senate from here.  It's day 78, so there are 12 days left for it to pass or die. Since this is the second session of the 26th Legislature (two a year beginning 52 years ago), whatever doesn't get passed, dies, and has to begin again from scratch in the 27th Legislature. 

HB 357AK RAILROAD CORP. LAND SALES 3RD RDG,4/7 CAL(H) 04/06/10

Sorry, I didn't figure out I should take all these pictures until the next one, so I don't have this vote.

SB 307

SHELTERS FOR RUNAWAY MINORS

PASSED (H)

04/06/10

This, as I understood it, closes a loophole in State law that will allow Covenant House to qualify for federal funding.

Open means the vote is not yet finished.  When it is closed, it says that in red as you'll see in one of the other pictures below.  Here I think Doogan was out of the room so he doesn't show as having voted.  I don't recall if he managed to vote before it closed.  But obviously his vote wasn't terribly important here. 



SJR 27FED. FUNDING: DOMESTIC SEAFOOD MARKETING PASSED (H) 04/06/10

SCR 12FETAL ALCOHOL SPECTRUM DISORDERS DAY PASSED (H) 04/06/10

The day will be 9/9/10 - to remind women not to drink during the nine months they are pregnant. 

SCR 13SUPPORTING SENIOR CAREGIVERS PASSED (H) 04/06/10

You can see the first two are legislation that originated in the House because they begin with H.  The rest are items that have made it through the Senate already and the begin with S.


ONE MORE WAY TO SEE THE VOTES

There is one more place you could get this information if you really needed it right away:  from Gavel to Gavel.

You can watch the broadcast originating from KTOO in Juneau.  They usually play it close to live (sometimes it's a little delayed if another meeting goes over.)  They usually play the House floor a second time. (It's scheduled for 6pm today.)  But you'd have to look quick if you wanted to know how each person voted. Here's the Broadcast Schedule page below.

The very bottom line shows it was scheduled at 10:30 today.  On the actual page you could scroll down and see it's scheduled again for 6:05pm (but remember the schedule changes as things happen.)  To find out where you can watch it - it the Where to Tune link (see the red mark on the left of the page above.)  It shows where people can see this on cable around the state.

You could also listen to the audio of the Floor Session, but unless they did a roll call vote, that wouldn't tell you how each representative voted.