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.  

Winter Lingers Beautifully in Juneau

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.

Anchorage Press Has a Slow Week

Obviously, the Anchorage Press is getting desperate* for stories based on this one in this week's edition. 

There comes a time in every reporter’s career when some jackass threatens to sue. For Steven Aufrecht, a retired university of Alaska professor who blogs about “this and that, as things come up” under the banner What do I know?, the threatening letter arrived in the mail in March. It’s from an attorney and threatens to pursue “all available legal and equitable remedies” on behalf of a client the letter identifies as the proprietor of something called the Alaska International Film Festival. 

Here's a link to the rest of the story, though regular readers have seen most of it here already.

The original post.
Their attorney's letter.
My attorney's letter. 

I have to say that Scott Christianson - someone I don't recall ever having talked to until he called earlier this week - treated me decently in the story.  I think it's probably good for people who write about other people to be subjects themselves now and then.  It reminds us how it feels and maybe makes most of us a little more careful when we write about others. 

*And all joking aside, I think this is a story that deserves more attention - the film festival with the exact same ACRONYM as the Anchorage International Film Festival that is, not me.

I'm sure that a lot of people have sent them films thinking they were sending it to a festival that actually shows movies.  Their site does say that it doesn't show movies.   Film makers do need to read the whole website of festivals they send money to.  But there doesn't seem to be any sort of accountability for film festivals other than word of mouth.  It's very easy for someone who's never been to Alaska to confuse the Alaska and the Anchorage International Film Festivals.  I mistyped it myself and was confused for a while, and I'd been blogging the Anchorage International Film Festival.  Think what a film maker in New Jersey knows about Alaska, let alone one in Holland or Japan.  How many people send films and money to the Alaska festival thinking the films will be shown to audiences like the Anchorage festival has?  I'm guessing quite a few.   

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.

I'm Dreaming of a White Songkran

This was Songkran two years ago in Chiang Mai.  It's a holiday in the hot season where in the temples the Buddha's are washed and in the streets everyone is washed.

This was Mt. Juneau yesterday from the State Office Building.

And here's the same view with a little perspective - the yellow building in front is the Juneau Douglas City Museum.  The brick building on the right is the Capitol.  We'd had snow, but what little stuck had melted.  These mountain views right smack in downtown are a reason Juneau's so spectacularly beautiful.

This morning from our window.  And below is a letter I received yesterday from the Thai Buddhist Temple in Anchorage.  This year's Songkran festival is Sunday.  We won't be back yet, but others who might be interested should go.  I know it can be intimidating to go to a religious ceremony you know nothing about.  But trust me, you will quickly feel at home.  Just remember that you take your shoes off before going into the Wat (temple.)  You may also be expected to sit on the floor.  And you should leave a bill or two on the money tree.  And you may want to practice the 'wai' putting your palms together at your chest and dipping your head slightly as you can see the people doing in the picture with the monk below.  Just copy the Thais and Laos there.  If you don't do it perfectly no one will be offended.  They will be delighted that you tried. 

I don't think at the Wat people will be splashing you with water.  It will be more solemn.  Here are a couple more pictures from Chiang Mai's Songkran in 2008. There's more explanation of the religious aspects of the holiday at the link. 

The Wat in Anchorage is on D just off of Fireweed.  If you live in another city that has a Thai Buddhist temple, check when they celebrate.  I promise you a very wonderful experience.  Just remember to take off your shoes when you go inside.  People will be coming and going all day, so it doesn't really matter when you get there.