Leg Spouses Plot at Lunch

I ran into three legislative spouses lunching together Wednesday at the Silverbough. Spice (that's the alternate plural, right?) Sid Atwood (Rep. Cissna), Tina Seaton (Rep. Seaton), and Kayla Epstein (Rep. Gruenberg) were plotting, it turns out, to sell daffodils for the American Cancer Society.  They had over three hundred bunches.  Even for the Cancer Society spring comes later in the rest of Alaska.  Their daffodil drives aren't until later in March.

Today it looked like every office in the Capitol had daffodils.  Nice, because it's gray with snowflakes outside.

Snow Run

I was getting used to no snow.  Then Monday morning everything was white.  Tuesday it was all gone.  Then Wednesday everything was white again.  But I needed to go run and Basin Road is close.  As I ran, part of me said, "You keep going the same trail, you'll run out of things to take pictures of."  And then I realized there were billions of pictures out there. 

The snow wasn't deep.  I figured the avalanche danger wasn't great with a one inch base.

What a great place to clear my head.

Sexual Assault Prevention Month and the UA President Search

Tuesday HCR 20 came before the State Affairs Committee and Wednesday it was already approved on the floor of the House of Representatives. There were a number of speeches in support of the bill, a lot of statistics (Sponsor Rep. Fairclough said Alaskans are two and a half times more likely to be the victims of rape than residents of any other state), and wringing of hands about how horrific this situation is. And a few people, I remember Rep. Joule specifically, called on their colleagues to do more than make proclamations, that they should fund the programs that fight sexual assault. HCR 20 discussion begins at 48:48 on the audio.

Meanwhile, the Board of Regents is scheduled to select a new university president from among three finalists. Among the three is General Patrick Gamble who was the Commandant of the Air Force Academy in 1993 and 1994.

As I reported in a previous post, a 1991 study reported alarming rates of sexual harassment and assault at all three military academies and a 1995 study found (from a  New York Times article on April 5, 1995:)

The report said the percentage of female students indicating they had experienced at least 1 of 10 forms of sexual harassment on a recurring basis was 78 percent at the Air Force Academy, an increase from 59 percent of the female students who responded to the same survey in 1990-91. The questionnaires were sent to randomly selected students at each academy.

Gen. Gamble arrived at the Academy after the first study had been made public with a fair amount of publicity.  As the incoming Commandant, he had to be aware of it.   At the community reception in Juneau a week ago, Gen. Gamble said management was about people, about "giving them a clear expectations of what the outcome you want is, and not getting in the way of them getting there"


So, he knew, or certainly should have known, that sexual harassment and assault were a serious problem at the institution he was about to lead.  We have to assume that he either did establish reducing sexual harassment as one of his expected outcomes or he didn't.  If he did, then his management style, on this issue anyway, was ineffective. Things got worse over the time period when he was there. If he didn't make this an expected outcome, it raises questions about his values and priorities, given the extremely high rates.


Because of the limited access to the search process - the final three were announced Sunday afternoon, Feb. 28, and then showed up the next day in Fairbanks, the next in Anchorage, and the next in Juneau, I (and apparently others) didn't get a chance to search the backgrounds of the candidates before they saw them.  So I didn't ask Gen. Gamble any of these questions.

I was able to raise this issue with two of the regents Monday when they met with the University Booster caucus.  They said it was not an issue they had been aware of and had not questioned the candidate about it. [Photo: Regents Carl Marrs and Mary Hughes in front, Regent Robert Martin behind/left of Regent Marrs.]


Perhaps Gen. Gamble put then state of the art programs into place.  We don't know.  Even if he didn't, perhaps his understanding and concern for the issue has evolved over time.

I don't mean to beat a dead horse here, but the regents decide on Sunday and listening to the legislators this morning talking about how serious sexual assault is in Alaska caused me to revisit the subject.

It seems that the president of our statewide university system should be someone who has, among all the other requisite skills and abilities, a proven track record as being both sensitive to the seriousness of the issue and competent in leading the fight to reduce our appalling statistics.

The University president, like the head of most organizations, sets the tone for what is and isn't acceptable.  We need a university president who will work hard to promote a climate on all campuses that is conducive to healthy interpersonal relationships - among and between faculty, administration, staff, and students.  The president also has influence on the kinds of funding raised to support research by scholars at the university.   The legislators today said we lead the country in sexual assault by a considerable margin.  One would hope that university research would contribute to changing those dysfunctional patterns.


For the victims of abuse, and those close to them, there is no more serious issue.  But  this issue affects us all.   Resources spent dealing with the long term effects of sexual abuse are significant.   For example, Dr. Clarren one of the top scholars on FASD (Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Disorder) reported at the FASD conference here in February, that in a study he did of mothers of FASD children, all of them had been victims of sexual abuse, and many of their stories were horrific. Alaska also has a very high rate of FASD.  Is that a coincidence?  Probably not. 

 

Regents Candidly Talk Procedure, Sports Center, and Land with U. Booster Caucus

Monday, the University Booster Caucus had an informal meeting with three of the University of Alaska Regents, Mary Hughes, Carl Marrs, and Robert Martin.   The video has three segments.

1.  Regent Hughes answers a question from the Caucus:  "Some of our colleagues say that the regents don't really read their packets and are just a rubber stamp for the president of the university.  How would you respond to that?"

2.  Regent Marrs responds to Rep. Pete Petersen's question about the progress of the sports center at UAA.

3.  Regent Marrs responds to a question, and follow up question by Rep. Berta Gardner, on the land grant legislation before the legislature now.

Below the video are some quotes from the video.  This morning I heard a good wrap up on yesterday's resolution of the land grant issues on KTOO, but I can't find the piece on the APRN website.  (I'm sure that's my problem, not theirs.)  Basically, as i recall it through my just waking up haze, they put restrictions on logging and made decisions about which parcels to include and which to exclude.  For those with a particular interest in this, I've posted the audio portion of the Community and Regional Affairs Committee meeting yesterday that discussed this.  It's at the bottom of the post.



Regent Marrs on UAA Sports Center:

"It's on our list, but it's not on the priority list of the short term for the University we're more student oriented toward the learning process than we were toward that type of facility to have state funding."

Regent Marrs on proposals to give land to the University:

"What we've really done is laid off a chunk of DNR's costs to the University and the funds go back to the general fund with really no guarantee of us getting that.  That's not a good deal for the university."


"There are other ways of slicing this cake and making it work."

"The legal side of this on all those pieces of land, especially in Southeast, we're gonna end up with litigation on probably everything that we have."

"I really appreciate the House and Senate have recognized the obligation to grant land to the University, but if we're going to do that  let's do it in a way that the University will benefit out of it and not have the sort of obligation to pay for it and maybe never get anything back."

Rep. Berta Gardner:

"First time I didn't support it because what I thought was going to happen is when the University came to the legislature and asked for funding somebody would say, "We just gave you a bunch of land, why are you asking us for money?"  and that in fact did happen."

"It hands you potentially a bunch of lawsuits and all kinds of agitating from communities that don't want this section logged or developed or whatever.."

Regent Marrs:

"It is a land grant school and was set up that way...I think it's an obligation of the state's, it shouldn't have anything to do with the funding, it's something that was owed."

"We need to find a way to be able to  transfer those lands to the University without creating this additional burden and not having any  guarantee that we'll get anything back out of it if we do something with those lands.  And that's the problem with the bill the way it was written."

"The backbone of Alaska is its land and I think the University deserves part of that backbone to operate in the future.  Those lands may not produce anything for 50 years, but it's there."


Below is the audio portion from the Tuesday, March 9, 2010 of the House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS which discussed HB 295  UNIVERSITY LAND GRANT

Alaska Constitutional Convention Delegate Vic Fischer Discusses the Boundary Commision with Rep. Guttenberg

Vic Fischer is one of, I believe, three surviving delegates to the Alaska Constitutional Convention.  I suspect that Hawaii is the only other state that might have writers of their Constitution still alive.  So when Vic is standing around in the Capitol in Juneau, lots of people come by to say hello.  Tuesday while I was talking to Vic, Rep. Guttenberg asked him a question about the Boundary Commission.  The legislature just passed the 45 day deadline to pass legislation regarding an annexation in Fairbanks that was decided by the Boundary Commission.  As they were talking I realized this was a unique moment - a legislator discussing  Constitutional intent concerning the Boundary Commission with one of the writers of the State Constitution,.  So I started my camera.  Later both gave permission to post it.  [Fishcher photo from University webpage on creating the Alaska Constitution.]



By the way, that's Rep. Bob Lynn of Anchorage mugging in the background toward the end.

Capitol Shots: Vic Fischer, Dave Donaldson, Rep. Gutenberg, Bill Sheffield, Max Gruenberg at Work

Here are some pictures from today.  I'm also working on some video.  My brain was full about 3:00pm.  Then got a nice call from my son who was walking his dog in what he described as the first non-winter day in Washington DC, a balmy 60˚ or so.  Warm as Juneau has been, we haven't even seen 50s.  J1's call gave me a little energy boost.  So now I'll put up some pictures and try to make sense of things later.

I ran into Vic Fischer, one of the delegates to the Alaska Constitutional Convention and got to ask a few questions about Constitutional intent.  Talking to him in the the Capitol hallway was a great way to get to meet people I didn't know. 








One of the  people I met was Dave Donaldson of APRN.  If you've ever listened to Alaska Public Radio news, you've heard his voice. (He's at the bottom of the page in the link.)

Rep. Dave Guttenberg had a question for Vic (I'm not being overly familiar, I've known Vic a long time because I worked in the same space as ISER (Institute for Social and Economic Research) at UAA) about Constitutional intent regarding the Boundary Commission.  There have been a lot of hearings titled "Boundary Commission" this session that I've stayed away from, but today I got an introduction.  I have some of this conversation on video which I'll try to get up later. 

Here's former Governor and current Anchorage Port Authority Director Bill Sheffield signing a photograph for Rep. Bill Stoltze.

And here's a followup discussion about HB 409 (actually Committee Substitute now)  in Rep. Gruenberg's office. On the left is Rep. Gruenberg's staffer Ted Madsen and on the right is Rep. Lynn's staffer Mike Sica, and in the background Rep. Gruenberg is listening to Leg Legal's Alpheus Bullard discussing changes on the phone.

State Affairs: Campaign Expenditures passes out with changes, Adj. General, Sexual Assualt Awareness Month, Towtruckers,

State Affairs Tuesday March 9, 2010

(H)STATE AFFAIRS		STANDING COMMITTEE *
Mar 09 Tuesday 8:00 AM		CAPITOL 106
+		Confirmation Hearing:	TELECONFERENCED
		Adjutant General Thomas Katkus,
		Commissioner, Dept. Military & Veterans'
		Affairs
=+	HB 409	CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES	TELECONFERENCED
*+	HB 251	PRIORITY OF TOWING LIENS	TELECONFERENCED
*+	HCR 20	SEXUAL ASSAULT AWARENESS MONTH	TELECONFERENCED
+		Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled	TELECONFERENCED

What Happened:

1. Tom Katkus' nomination to Adjutant General was moved to the next committee.

2. House Current Amendment (HCR) 20 declaring April Sexual Assault Awareness was passed to the next committee.

3.  HB 401 - Campaign Expenditures.  A Committee Substitute with about seven amendments passed out of the committee.  Key changes as I understood this were:
a.  section added to duplicate the federal laws prohibiting foreign nationals from participating in elections
b.  requirement for five largest contributors to be listed by name in television ads was changed to include audio, then reduced to three instead of five.  If I understand this correctly, it was also changed for the visual version as well to just three.  It's not clear how these changes might affect what has to be reported to APOC.  The audio was added.  The change to three was made because Rep. Johnson complained that it would use up 1/3 of a 30 second ad to do that and it would be unintelligible if you read all the names.  Then, to make things consistent, the number for the written contributors was reduced to three as well.  At least, that's what I understood.
There was a lot of language like, "But the amendment would keep it in.  I'm going to withdraw my amendment and add a new one.  To delete on Amendment 2 lines 14 and 15 and instead amend section 9 of the bill to read as it does, change in to on and on page 5 change in to on and retain the language referring to 067." which made it hard to be totally sure what was actually done at the end.
There was also discussion about language that exempts a 'person' from making an anonymous expenditure under certain conditions.  The Leg. Legal attorney said the language was in due to US Constitutional guarantees. 

This is one of the more important bills this session.   In the aftermath of the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision saying you can't ban corporate independent spending in elections, Alaska has no laws requiring disclosure of who is making the contributions, because all such contributions had been banned.  This bill incorporates three House bills and there is also a Senate bill working on this to require disclosure of independent contributions.  I'll do a separate post on this because it's so important. 

4.  House Bill 20:  This was introduced by Rep. Ramras on behalf of tow truck drivers who because of a court case Aurora v Credit Union 1, banks that have liens against cars can force tow truck lots to give up the cars without paying any of the towing fees.  The tow truck companies have to get in line with all other creditors.  This bill would put tow truck drivers at the top of the list of lien holders.  I talked to a bank lobbyist about this after the hearing (he'd missed it and asked what had happened.)  After our discussion, it seemed to me that this was an overly complex way to solve the problem.  It would just seem easier to pass a law saying that lending institutions have to pay any towing and storage fees before they can recover a car.  But I'm not an attorney, so there's probably a lot more to it than that.


The Rough Details

OK, so that's the overview.   Below are my notes from this morning's State Affairs.  Use them with CAUTION.  They just guide you to what was discussed, but with omissions as the words flew faster than my fingers, and even errors where I might have misconstrued what someone said.  But the tape is you back up. I'll try another post which gives the highlights of what happened when I figure them out.



Tom Katkus - Adj. Gen of Alaska.  Parents both immigrants, homestead act in Wasilla, five kids went to boarding school around the country.  After college National Guard, jumping out of airplanes.  OCS here.  commissioned 1980, career in Alaska National Guard, APD 1979, 2000 left APD full time NG drug enforcement.  Bigger better toys.  AK Army Guard Commander.

Johnson:  what have you done since?

Katkus :Family, son's headed to Iraq.  Wife also retired Municipal employee

Parents from England and Poland??

Mike Kuntz:  Major, exec officer First Battalion.....  Not prepared to speak.  Lots of change in last year and half.  Concern, lost some people, information missing, one thing fortunate, Gen. Katkus and I had long conversation.  He showed me in the statutes how we are going be utilized in a better way, can conceptualize what is going on.  Good vision.  . .  .

Lynn:  Letter from Rep. Herron.   You know the word "Mustang?"  Person who came up through the ranks to General.  Approved.

House Joint Resolution 20:  Sponsored by Rep. Fairclough

Fairclough:  Aprils is sexual assault
Fairclough staffer:  2.6 X more likely to be sexually assaulted in Alaska than any other state.

Gatto:  1 in 11 men report being victims.  Is there ratio between reported and actual?  There are nation wide studies.

Staff:  For those who report there are 1 in 11 that report.  Men are more ashamed to report sexual violence.  There's not a hard number, that would say there are 40% of men.  Depends on how you define it.  We report mechanically.  Do not go thru national data base.  There are specific ways that rape is described to be considered inappropriate contact.  I don't want to be graphic. Unnecessary.  You all understand what I'm talking about.

Gatto:  If a person is sexually assaulted day after day.  Is that one person being assaulted, but multiple incidents reported.

Staff:  One person, multiple incidents.

Fairclough:  I was head of STAR, many incidents never get reported.

Gruenberg:  Do men report at centers less than women?

Fairclough:  Since 98% of clients are women, and if 1/11 men report, then obviously underused.

Seaton:  We all recognize this is one stat we don't want to be first in the nation.  Hope we can bring the rate down.

Fairclough:  Gov. Parnell is putting together a march on March 31 to ask Alaskans to step forward to make a public statement about this issue.  ANDVSA is in town today and will be calling on offices.

Passed.

HB 409 - Campaign Expenditures
Lynn: Brief synopsis on last hearing, my intention to pass bill from committee today.
Seaton:  Move CS for HB 409.
Gruenberg:  Only difference is adoption of your amendment? 
Mike Sica, staff of Rep. Lynn:  Trying to get laws that address disclosures and disclaimers by corporations, unions, llc's.  Page 4 Sec.  is our disclosure
Page 5 sec. 10 is disclaimer
Page 6 is personal liability for officer in event.
Right below section 12, we passed part of an amendment that creates a 24 hour rule for reporting expenditures.

Lynn:  Bring Amendment 3A - What did it do?
Sica:  Page 6, now line 11 and 12. - changed from 3 days to 24 hours.  What happens is language that follows either redundant or contradictory.
Lynn:  Bring Amendment 3B off the table.  Passed w/o objections
Seaton:  Since copy we have was to the previous version, like to make  a line change.  3B Conceptual amendment.  Amendment 1 to version E.
Lynn:  Moving to CS version A
Gruenberg:  Mr. Sica have you completed your explanation?
Sica:  Yes.
Lynn:  Which amendment first and what order
Sica:  I'm a scattered mess here.  E.1
Lynn:  Move E.1
Sica:  Alpheus Bullard is also on line.  What happened at last meeting March 2, we passed an amendment that made changes thruout the bill, where we put the word independent before expenditures, and unintentionally, didn't speak to expenditures not independent, say, made by candidates.  It puts in a section that addresses expenditures that are not indedependent expenditures.
Gruenberg:  I'd like to look at lines 14 and 15, relates to bill itself, Sect. 9, on p. 4 line 29- p. 5 line 6.  Makes a grammatical change that I would like to keep.  Probably Mr. Bullard really wants to delete the ref. on line 5 to ????.  My amendment would, leave the deletion, but change in to on in both cases.
Lynn:  Mr. Bullard?
Bullard:  I don't believe the changes Rep. Gruenberg suggests would cause any harm.  On lines 14 and 15 we will not delete section 9, but change it by deleting [13.16...???)]
Gruenberg:  .... I'm getting confused here.
Lynn:  That is on the record.
Bullard: I understand that you want the changes, but not the grammatical changes, and that's how I would understand your conceptual amendment to the amendment.

Lynn:  Does this go to the heart of the bill as necessary?
Bullard:  I wouldn't characterize it has having substantive effect.  While it would be nice that every thing be grammatical, it isn't legally necessary.
Seaton:  Objection - if we leave it in we have different groupings of people who can make expenditures.  Sect 7 says ....  Sec. 9 says Candidate, campaign manager, treasurer, etc.

Bullard:  Section 7 speaks to expenditures and reporting of them
Section 9 speaks to who can report.

Seaton:  Not what I was talking about.
Bullard:  I don't think there is a conflict.  It just speaks to who may make an expenditure for the candidate.  Forgive me if I'm not addressing the substance of your question.
Seaton:  You are. Section 7 say who can make an expenditure.  How does that coordinate with SEc. 9, authorized list of who can make expenditures.
Bullard:  SEc. 9 only makes ref. to who can make expenditures on behalf of the candidate.  Sec. 7 talks about who can make expenditures in general, not on behalf of the candidate.
Seaton:  Are we saying there, the authorized maker of an expenditure, is authorized to make expenditures on behalf of a candidate and is that different from our new group in sec. 7.
Bullard:  Sec. 9 broken into two paragraphs, 1 on behalf of a candidate, and 2 is on behalf of a group.

Bullard:  Suggested amendment to the amendment of Rep. Gruenberg would have no substantive effect.
Gruenberg:  My only suggestion was purely grammatically - on behalf instead of in behalf - but what is substantive....
Lynn:  We have this many amendments and I'd like to move this out today.
Gruenberg:  Why do you want to take that reference out of the bill?
Bullard:  In the CS 15.13.067 is repealed,
Gruenberg:  But the amendment would keep it in.  I'm going to withdraw my amendment and add a new one.  To delete on Amendment 2 lines 14 and 15 and instead amend section 9 of the bill to read as it does, change in to on and on page 5 change in to on and retain the language referring to 067.
Bullard:  This is the same conceptual amendment as I understaood your first amendment to be.  Yes we can keep the grammatical changes.
Gruenberg:  But we have to keep the reference in the law.
Bullard: I would consider that as a helpful guide to the fact that a group has to register, but it is covered in another statute.
Lynn:  Recognize Rep. Wilson came a while ago.
Wilson:  Why are we retaining that if it is covered elsewhere.
Gruenberg:  It is the current law and it is helpful.
Seaton:  I'm going to object.
Lynn:  Role please Amendment to Amendment w
Gatto yes, Johnson no Gruenbrg yes Peterson, yes, Seaton no, Lynn, no  Failed 4-3
Lynn:  It failed after 15 minutes on a grammatial point.
Gatto:  Mr. Bullard, we've taken great pains removing words, candidates, group, non-group, but when I look at page ten it's back in.
Lynn:  What's he talking about?
Bullard:  Language does different things in different parts of the bill.  By removing the language, it makes clear that it applies to all person equally.  But section 11 says who can make expenditures.  I did not want there to be any risk that there might be some loophole that someone could make an independent expenditure.
Lynn:  Amendment 2 is adopted.

Sica:  AmendmentE2

Lynn:  I offer Amendment 2 which is E3.

Sica:  It says section seven , but we just passed section seven so this will become section 8.  This simply mirrors the federal legislation barring foreign nationals.

Seaton:  For review, we had testimony from AG an APOC, that we would have trouble taking such a violation to APOC, since we had no legislation.  We would have to take ti to the federal court system.  We aren't preempted from doing this.  It is identical language, not in conflict.
Sica:  John Ptacin is on line
Lynn: Amendment 3 passes.

Sica:  E3 if you go to page 5 line 22, after "identify the"  it adds, ????????  - this ads audio component - not only scroll in tiny letters, have to say it outloud too.

Johnson:  I think we're going to get a bunch of campaign ads that sound like Cal Worthington ads.  It's 8 seconds of a 30 second ad.  As a former broadcaster, we're cluttering the air, if the top five contributors are long corporate names, people will sue because they couldn't understand.  We're cluttering the message so much that we are depriving them of free speech.  People can see it on line if they want.  Saying this is egregious.  I could find an attorney to deprive someone of half of their investment.  I'm not knocking Cal Worthington, it's like a machine gun, read five cars in ten seconds, can't understand it.  Although a valid and noble effort.  Getting into an area where people will say it runs afoul.  The rest of it is fine.
Lynn:  I'm going to withdraw.
Seaton:  I don't think there was a motion to put this amendment before us.
Lynn:  I'm going to offer and withdraw the amendment.
Gruenberg:  Will you offer something else because I will.
Lynn:  OK as long as you don't get into grammar.
Gruenberg:  I offer substance of Amendment 4 as Amendment 5.
1.  Main objection I heard from Rep Johnson is length of time.  Actually, this proposed dislaimer is shorter than present law which requires street addresses to be read.
2.  To shorten it further offer conceptual amendment to amendment, p. ?  line 19, I'll insert the word three, and p. 1 line 17 want it clear conceptually, name doesn't have to say corp or LLC and they could just say the name, like "coca cola".
Johnson:  I'm going to object.  I object to whole concept.  If this were written, not address radio.  It's easier to give address.
Lynn:  Personally, I'm listening to someone with radio and tv expertise.
Johnson:  Don't get carried away.  I do have experience.
Gruenberg:  What I'm doing is shortening, it would go part of the way, and then we can get to the substance.
Lynn:  Roll.
Gatto:  Read it before call roll.
Gruenberg:  Line 1, 17 where person's name, wouldn't have to say (if non-individual) wouldn't have to say Alaska Airlines Group, just Alaska Airlines.  2 on line 19 only the top 3 contributors would have to be listed.
Johnson no, gr yes, seaton yes, wilson, yes, gatto yes, lynn, no  5-2 yeah (Amendment 4?)

Lynn:  Amendment 5
Gruenberg: Purpose is to provide transparency.  Some people, visaully impaired folks who listen but won't see it  This will indicate to them people behind the add.  The rest of us listen to tv, doing something else, but we hear the text, without seeing images.  We want to be sure it reaches both sets of people.  Does no harm.
Seaton:  I'd like to ask Mr. Bullard:  In both bill and amendment we have the ontributors, we don't have that bifurcated.  A corp that doesn't have ??? or labor union using treasury, or earnings in Alaska using out of their treasury.  How do we differentiate and what would be the requirement?
Bullard:  Current amendment - line 11 beginning with B, if applicable, would make it only applicable if the entity has contributed.  If no contributor no need to disclose.
SEaton:  If we don't have that do we still need this amendment in the bill, so contributors have some direction of who they have to list.
Bullard:  If you go to bill line 5 page 3, the word

Johnson:  What if the top contributors ten all pay the same money would they all have to be listed.
Bullard:  Not sure.
Gruenberg:  That is not a prob with thea mendment because same language appears on the bill pa. 5 line 22.  All we're doing is removing it lower down.  But it's still the top 5 have to be listed.  Int he unlikely event, if there were six contributors.  If 25, they couldn't require all 25.  Any time there is a number, it will have to be interpreted.  Could be six largest corps.
Gatto:  If six contributors, all the same, all tied for first, they would all have to be listed.
Roll:  Johnson no  Lynn no  Gruenberg yes Peterson yes  SEaton yes  Wilson no  Rep Gatto yes  4 yeah, 3 nay.  (Amendment 5)

Seaton:  For clarification, not the five largest, now the three largest contributors.
Gruenberg:  Only the audio.  Amendment is only audio.
Seaton:  I would make that conforming amendment on the disclaimer, changing to five largest contributors to three.  For written.
Passes
Sica:  Memo attached to both Petersen's memo, that may address one of his.
Petersen;  I move Amendment 7
Here in Ak we have a lot of international corps that are involved in resource extraction, they form AK subsidiary.  It gets convoluted, important citizens in Alaska know it is foreign based even if they have an AK subsidiary.  Let the sun shine in, let the voters know who is trying to influence the vote.
Lynn:  Amendment E.5
Seaton:  I think we have on the Amendment 3 p. 1 subsection 4, mentions subsidiary,.  We've adopted the federal prohibition. So I think it is unnecessary.
Gruenberg:  Question to Bullard:  Is this necessary because we adopted A 3.  There are four sentences.  if we are talking about a disclosure.  Does A3 prohibit a foreign govt. owning a 10% interest.
Bullard:  A7 titled E5 applies to entities that the A3 does not speak to.  A3 speaks to entities owned by foreign nationals.  This applies to 10% ownership foreign govts.
Gruenberg:  The first not covered, but the others covered in A3.
Bullard:  I would describe your statement as accruate.  Certain parts spoken to in previous amendment.
Gruenberg:  We'd have to keep line 13 to 15 in.
Bullard:  You're absolutely correct, I looked at the wrong one.
Gruenberg:  You recommend, Bullard, we take out the final sentence.
Bullard:  I don't recommend anything - laughter
Lynn:  Smart man.
Bullard:  The topic is covered, but there is no common definition.  If you wish to adopt, that you leave the ultimate sentence.
Gruenberg:  Would you say we need ..
Bullard:  I object to the word need, but yes, you could remove that.
G:  I move we delete ...........that sentence.
Amendment to Amendment passes.   (Not really sure what they passed here.)


G:  Should any of this definition in A7 also be covering A3 since you said we did not define foreign government?
Bullard:  A7 applies to person with ownership interest owned by foreign governments, A3 speaks to foreign nationals.
Seaton:  Trying to grapple with A7 in relation to A3 Mr. Bullard, we have prohibition on foreign nationals, and it says foreign nationals includes foreign government, how is that not what is in A7.
Bullard:  It is what is described in A7, but only for that statute.  A7 ???
A7 passes as amended

E.6
Peterson: E.6= A8.  There are some corps who have moved the home office, say to a foreign location to avoid income taxes, this would require them to actually disclose where they are located, where theyrelocated themselves for the purposes of evading income taxes.
Seaton:  Trying to understand.  Mr. Bullard?
Bullard:  Is there a psecific question?
Seaton:  Trying to undersand where we're asking fr a different address than their address they report on tax issues.  If three subsidiaries - in Cal and had sub in AK, I'm unclear to what this means.
Bullard:  Page 3 line 8 of bill.  Person required to file asked to file certain info.  Rep. Petersen's amendment says, if a person has a different address for tax purposes, that that address be used instead.
Seaton:  How do we dtermine all this?  Multiple addresses, headquarters, etc.  Confused.
Petersen:  Corp called American Widgets all would assume that they were American company, but if they moved to Cayman Islands, they'd have to report that address.
Seaton:  Wouldn't that be covered under foreign corps.  What about if incorporated in Delaware, would they have to use that instead of their.  Does Mr Bullard think this necessary if we adopted earlier.
Bullard:  If the intent is solely for company that has taken it's address offshore for tax purposes, it would be prohibited by federal always and A3.
Johnson:  I have conceptual amendment.  P. 4 line 16 prohibited expenditures.  Purpose, person may not make an expenditure anonymously unless
Bullard:  US Supreme Court in MacIntyre recognized the right of certain limited rights of individuals to make anonymous limited contributions.
Johnson:  If we buy a full page newspaper ad that is not cheap.  We have free speech, but nothing guarantees free speech.
Gatto:  We see it every time, Americans for Peace.  I don't like anonymous ads, because they are always meant to give a name you'd support unless you.
Gruenberg:  I think this is important.  I support it.  I would like to add a severability clause, that if any section is considered unconstitutional, the rest won't be thrown out.  Also going to Judiciary where it can be reviewed.
Johnson:  I see it as friendly if covers whole bill.
A9 passes.
Seaton:  On this last point, I want to be sure it's understood we've asked legal counsel to draw up a memo on this and it is apssed on to the next committee.
Bullard:  I've heard your desire to incorporate amendment and legal memo to explain it.

Online we have Holly Hill from APOC.
Hill:  No comment at this time.
Ptacin:  I have prepared some remarks from last session, we seem pressed for time, you can ask questions personally.
Public testimony closed.
Wilson:   For Mr bullard - you gave us a memorandum, dated March 3.  at end, it says, if all must be disclosed within 24 hours, was that taken care of.
Bullard:  When you considred the bi-furcated, half of which was tabled, I think you covered that.

Johnson:  I have another amendment, I'll work with people on judiciary.  We've talked about candidates and ?????, we've left out, to influence legislation, ads on my home district, those kinds of expenditures need to be looked at as well.  Anyone investing money to influence our process.  I apologize for my absence.  In the next committee, we should take up not only candidates, we see lots of stuff saying call up your legislature, stop this bill, etc.
If we're going to be transparent, we shouldn't go half way.
Wilson:  I want to tap on what Jonhson just said.  Sometimes the ads are very misleading.  I don't care if it's the truth, but if it's misleading.  If people are going to spend money for any reason, the public needs to know.

Petersen:  I do, I think we've made good changes, still a work in progress, Judiciary still needs to work on it.

bill 409  as amendment passes with no objections. 
Lynn:  Thank Mike Sica for his hard work.

HB 251 Liens on vehicles and providing for an effective date.
Ramras:  brought to me by tow truck drivers from my home town.  What happens is people, tow truck is impounded, car is repossessed by bank, poor tow truck operator has to stand behind the back, owed, $85 or $185.  This would allow tow truck drivers would be first on lien list.

Margeret Raybe???:  Represent towing industry across the state.  Also representing y own company.  AK Statutes allow liens against vehicles before anyone else.  Unfortunately, HB 251 says primary lienholder over vehicle has priority.  They can take the vehicle without paying for it.  We expect to be paid directly, we shouldn't absorb losses that rest of emergency services get paid for.
Gruenberg:  The problem I understand that you only have a possessory lien and there is nothing to stop the banks to come and take the vehicle which destroys the possessory lien.  Do you have a right to obtain the possessory.

Raybe:  It should be lien to follow the vehicle. 
Gruenberg:  We can deal with this in Judiciary.

Another witness:  The lienholders want to take the cars  without paying for them.

Mark Davis:  Owner of .... Salvage.  Sympathize with lien holders.  We cannot absorb too many of these.  And some of the lien holders are using this to their advantage.  and blackmailing us.  We aren't trying to steal cars, just to be paid for our services.

Shawn Hess:  I'm in favor.  Example of what happens.  Requested by state troopers to pick up Dui, recovered it, took it to my yard.  Lien holder told me I had to return to them and they returned it to the owner.  Had to settle through insurance company.


Gatto:  AST made request that you tow.  Is it required that they be responsibile.
Hess:  If we take it to our own yard, the owner is responsible.
Gatto:  You have contract with AST.
Gruenberg:  Did the judge issue a written decision.
Davis:  They based it on Aurora towing out of Anchorage.
Gruenberg:  If someone could
Davis:  Credit Union 1 v. Aurora towing.

Lynn:  Close for now, will put it at head of the line.

New Snow and LOTS OF WIND

We woke up Monday to more snow than there's been since we got here mid January. That isn't saying a lot, but for the first time there was snow on the walkway from our front door to the gate to the street, so I shoveled it, well scraped it off is probably more accurate.

This picture was still from inside and eating breakfast.

And this is on the way to work. I've got a picture of this 

lawn almost green a couple of weeks ago.

And the totems were dusted too.

J had tutored at a housing project on Douglas Island. It's really not that far - maybe a mile and a half - but I suggested she take a bus back because it was so windy. It says 'gusts up to 50 mph.' But she wanted to get her walk in, so I started out to meet her. This view is from the bridge over Calhoun near the Fifth Street stairs. You can see the water in the channel. Then I got into wind that definitely required conscious attention to stay upright. I haven't figure out how to photograph the wind, except for flags.  Today needed a video and audio, but even then the full effect wasn't visible in the branches of the trees. An example:  a light wind can lift a baseball cap fairly easily, but I had to hold on to my knit wool cap because I could feel it being tugged off. 

Fortunately, it was warm enough that the slush on the sidewalks was more soft than icy. J said, and I surely believe it, that the wind had been worse crossing the bridge.

A good thing about not having a car is that you aren't even tempted not to walk on days like this. We definitely get more every day exercise than at home.

Senate Judiciary Committee - Campaign Expenditure and Hate Crimes

I'm here because the Committee is supposed to discuss campaign expenditures.

But none of the Senators are here 18 minutes after the starting time. But in the audience you can see (l-r front row) ADN reporter Rich Mauer, newly arrived to take over from Lisa Demer and Rep. Bob Lynn, chair of the House State Affairs Committee which has been holding hearings on House campaign expenditure bills.  Behind Rep. Lynn is AP reporter Jeremy Hsieh. 

1:50 pm Committee Chair Hollis French and Sen. Egan are both here now.  I'll post this now and add to it as things progress. 

(S)JUDICIARY		STANDING COMMITTEE *
Mar 08 Monday 1:30 PM		BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
=+	SB 209	STATE COUNCIL ON THE ARTS; REGULATIONS	TELECONFERENCED
=+	SB 260	ELECTRIC & TELEPHONE COOPERATIVES' VOTING	TELECONFERENCED
*+	SB 202	HATE CRIMES	TELECONFERENCED
+	SB 284	CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES	TELECONFERENCED
+		Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled	TELECONFERENCED

---

This is pretty messy, I'll post it now, but go through it and clean it up.  Of course you can listen to the actual hearing at Gavel 2 Gavel.    DO NOT RELY ON THIS FOR ANY MORE THAN A ROUGH SENSE OF WHAT HAPPENED.  A number of people spoke faster than I could type.  Think of this as a guide to what you should look for on the audio.


2pm called to order by Sen. French.
Motion on SB 209 - bill moved on.  At ease to sign the bill

 

Sen. Coghill, Chair Sen. French,
Sen Wielechowski (Walking), staffer, Sen. Egan

Back on agenda - SB 260 to allow coops to vote electronically.  Amendment to make sure if they do move to electronic voting, they do not have electronic voting exclusively.  Amended adopted.
Bill moved out of committee.  Another break to sign this one.

SB 214 and HB 6:  CS #6 - Cruelty to Animals
Wielechowski - Combined the two bills together
Welcome Sen McGuire to committee.
Motion to adopt CS version /S.

Staff:  Shelly Morgan, Wielechowski .  bill amended to include hb 138, about acts of animal cruelty, strengthen punishment for animal cruelty and acts of bestiality criminal.  Violent crimes against animals and people will count...

Mike Sica - Rep. Lynn's staff - and we support this. 

Morgan:  All from SB 214 creates felony animal cruelty provision, misdeamnor for first offense and second offense in ten years knowingly killing or using to threaten or terrorize another person.  [Can't keep up.]  Knowingly engaging in sexual conduct with an animal.
She's talking about the levels of offense for each type of conduct.
In almost all situations penalties are higher for crimes against people than against animals.  Except stalking.

Coghill:  Help me understand this.  4th degree assualt, on a human being, where does this set.

French:  4th degree recklessly causing pain.  Could widely range.

Coghill:  Just trying to understand the equivalency.

Sica:  Not talking about pain, but about prolonged.

Coghill:  My only thinking is that we could end up having felonious behavior on animals, where humans do bad things to each other and get pled out, where this may not.  You'll see these less before DA's and judges.

Sen. W:  If you knowing inflict prolonged and severe pain on an animal - lowest form of felony.  If you do this on human being unclassified felony.
I can't keep up.

Coghill:  What's significant about decompression chamber.

Sen. W:  It's been in the statues a long time, a particularly heinous way to kill an animal.  Left over language.  Also killing by use of poison.

French:   Added and adopted on house side.  Amendment 1 is adopted.  We've heard that infllicting pain on animals precedes doing same to people.

Rep. Lynn:  Good example of house and senate working together to craft legislation that protects both animals and humans.  Like 2+2=5.

French:  Thank you for opening your bill to amendment.  We won't get many bills passed this year and yours was well positioned.

Lynn:  Main goal is to protect the community.  For the good of the people of Alaska. 

SEn. W.  I agree.  We won't get many bills passed this session.

Coghill:  Concerned only that it may get misused.  We ask soldiers to do things and we may have police using trained animals to do things that could possibly be called into question.  Can't find anything.  I hope this catches people practicing cruel behavior and is not used by people using animals for noble things.

Bill moved out of committee.  Short at ease.

2:19  Back on agenda for SB 202 welcome Sen. Davis

Davis:  Thanks for hearing this bill in a timely manner.  This bill has been around for a while.  I hope I'm the last one to introduce it because it gets adopted.  I know there has to be a way to get this hate crime bill passed.

Tom Obermeyer, aide to Davis:  202 makes any crime more serious or aggravated if motivated by sex, race, religion, national origin, etc.  known as a hate crime.  This ramps up the crime one level if it is a hate crime.
He's speaking very quickly and I can't nearly keep up.

Tom Obermeyer and Sen. Betty Davis testifying before the Committee.

French:  Is this legislation modeled after federal or other state?

Obermeyer:  Does not really follow Matthew Shepherd law.  Our language with the specific words in the Alaska Constitution.

Wielechowski :  Refresher, if we hae it in federal law and state, could they be prosecuted both fed and state?

Obermeyer:  People in the room could answer that.  My experience is that we can go beyond what the feds do, but we can't do less.

J. Kate Burkhart, Ex. Director of Alaska Mental Health Board - we support this if it includes people with mental illness.  Study shows people with mental illness 11 times more likely to be victims of these crimes.  Does provide educational component.  Appreciation for sponsors' work and committee's hearing it.

Marsha Buck,  resident of Juneau, representing board of directors of Alaskans Together for Equality for Alaskans gay, bi, transexual etc.  My daughter has a longterm relationship with another woman, and I care deeply about safety of my daughter, daugher-in-law, and my grandchildren.  We firmly request to amend to include gender perception.  It doesn't matter if the person perceived as different is heterosexual or gay to be a victim.  Also includes Alaskans who are transgender.  Transgender woman recently had nose broken on Anchorage Peoplemover.

French:   Thank you...

Kelly Birkenshaw:  Also on behalf of Alaskans Together for Equality and myself.  We recognize that hate crimes are not limited to our community and appreciate that the bill recognizes that Alaska has no tolerance for these acts.  But the bill leaves out transgender and  i can offer some definitions.

Sen. McGuire:  That would be helpful, to have definitions.

Birkenshaw:  SExual orientation- unique way people perceives own sexual desires ... and gender id is concept of maleness or femaleness - anywhere on the continuum.  SEx = biological characteristics at birth.  Gender id might be perceived as different from the gender assigned at birth.  As a resident of Juneau, breaking up, perceived as too masculine as a child, ... up to 60% of my transgender friends have been victims of violence.  I know how that feels and

Jeff Jessee:  Chief Exec. Officer AK Mental Health Trust Authority - my focus on hate crimes focused on those with mental disabilities.  ... You've heard personal testimony.  I was born with a cleft palate.  I couldn't order a meal in a restaurant until I was 11.  As a kid, I was called names, bullied, mocked, and beat up.  These kids that did that to me, grow up to be the adults who continue that as adults.  Both personaly and on behalf of the trust I urge you to pass this.

David Eastman - online - Served as MP for 6 years in AK.  Based on my law enforcement experience, I want to speak against this.  It will shift focus of harm of victim to mindset of offender.  The only true crime is minimized.  Crime is inherently discriminatory.  I discriminate when I chose to commit a crime against you.  If I commit a crime gainst you because o your age.  if I target you because of obesity or member of the military.  In any of these cases my motive was bad, regardless.  Do we need the government to step in to tell me I'm bad.  More role of church than police or judge.  Govt. isnt' effective in changing morality.  I urge you not to succumb to that temptation.  We move away from equality under the law.  This bill would make some of us more equal than others.  Alaskans lowered in contrast to others.  Further politicizes one aspect of our lives.

Crimes are motivated by hate, a willingness to commit crime against antoher.  By my refusal to treat another person by respect and dignity.  This won't change a person when they get out of prison.

Clement Steiner:  - public defender for state of Alaska.  Practical issues about drafting and effect.  "knowingly directed"  is inconsistent with ... scheme.  More along the lines of specific intent.  Knowing aspect is crime itself, confusing issues and confused as downgrading to a lower mens rea.
2nd concern.  Regarding proof.  Typically, motive is not a crime.  By criminalizing motive you broaden this beyond the act to the person themselves. 

French - if you have specific drafting suggestions send them along.
Coghill - we hage the aggrevator in ....c22 it would be interesting to me how often that has been applied and how handled.  Not exactly the same language.

Mr. Jeff Mittman:  ACLU - ED.  Submitted written testimony.  We appreciate sponsors and it is important that we think it an important statement to make.  People are targeted.  Because of that, we think the phrase gender identity added to the bills.  We have some concerns and PD has raised them as well.  Speech rights have to be recognized as well.  If someone attacks a homosexual, prior evidence should not be introduced because it violates first amendment rights to hold beliefs.  At trial evidence should be introduced as it directly relates to the crime, but not associational evidence.

Close testimony and hold for future hearing.

SB 284:  Campaign Expenditures.  Meat in two sections 4 and 11.
Disclosure:  writing on a piece of paper and disclosing to APOC
Disclaimers:  putting words in the ad that tells the public who is pushing this piece of legislation.

Obviously not going to move today.

Coghill:  I like a lot, but would like to challenge a few by way of amendment.  Drafter here, Mr. Bullard.  Thanks for being available.  Also John Ptacin available.

Matt Wallace from AKPIRG:  ED - Briefly weigh in in support.  Pretty catastrophic decision by SC.  Didn't invent big money problem.  We believe it explains a lot of the cynicism people feel toward politics in general.  CU opened the floodgates.  A lot we can do and SB 284 is just one of those measures.  Pleased with piece that requires disclaimers in campaign ads.  Top five contributors of front groups would be required to be identified.

Marilyn Russell in Fairganks - League of Women Voters president - League supports the bill.  LWV goals:  insure public's right to know  2.  combat corruption and un?? influence  3. ??  and 4.  ???  It is vital that Alaska laws to add campaign disclosures.... Citizens should know who is spending money in support of candidates.  Loophole of this magnitude is unexceptable and should be remedied before the elections.

Close public testimony.

Wed. We hae AG for confirmation hearing.  Some questions to him today.  Adjourned. 3:02

Cliff Groh Speculates on Why Young and Ben Stevens Unindicted

Alaska attorney Cliff Groh, who's writing a book on the Ted Stevens' investigation and trial, has posted his speculation on why Don Young and Ben Stevens haven't been indicted yet.
Here are some of his key points, and then he fills a lot in between these lines.  Check out the whole post at his blog Alaska Political Corruption.

1. The Department of Justice appears to feel both singed and relatively short-staffed after the Ted Stevens case blew up and former legislators Pete Kott and Vic Kohring got out of prison. . .
The meltdown of the Ted Stevens prosecution and the continuing revelations of the prosecution’s failures have put a cloud over the lawyers best-informed about the Alaska public corruption investigation and dirtied up the government’s primary cooperating witnesses. . .

UPDATE (March 7): Bill Allen is less likely to be cooperative as a federal witness against Ben Stevens or Don Young if Allen comes to believe that the Anchorage police--or especially the federal government--is investigating him for allegedly committing sex crimes. . .

2. A controversy over the constitutionality over one of the feds’ primary weapons against public corruption has appeared to make them wary about bringing more complicated cases in this area. . .

3. The combination of his extensive financial disclosures and—perhaps—his relative invisibility on incriminating tapes may help prevent the prosecution of Ben Stevens, and Don Young’s apparent receipt of things of relatively little value may be aiding Alaska’s only Congressman avoid charges. . .

Again, you can read the Cliff's detailed explanation at his blog, Alaska Political Corruption.