Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
04/05/2018 03:15 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Approval of Introduction of Potential Committee Legislation | |
| HB83 | |
| SCR17 | |
| HB407 | |
| SB163 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 407 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SCR 17 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 163 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 83 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 407-APOC; CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS/REPORTING
Contains Discussions of HB 158
3:35:57 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 407, "An Act relating to the duties of
the Alaska Public Offices Commission; clarifying the limits on
making, accepting, and reporting certain cash campaign
contributions; relating to campaign finance reporting by certain
groups; relating to the identification of certain campaign
communications; increasing the time the Alaska Public Offices
Commission has to respond to a request for an advisory opinion;
repealing a reporting requirement for certain contributions;
relating to propositions and initiative proposals; and providing
for an effective date."
3:36:39 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS offered that he had an amendment drafted
although he was unsure whether it would be offered.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked for confirmation that the proposal
would eliminate the duplicative reporting requirement for groups
where individuals were expected to report at the same time as
the group.
3:37:31 PM
HEATHER HEBDEN, Executive Director, Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC), Department of Administration (DOA), referred
to HB 407, Sec. 9. [AS 15.13.040(k), page 5, line 18,] and
answered that that is her understanding. Sec. 9 was repealed,
the requirement for contributors to report the same information
that is currently being reported by the valid initiative group.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH commented that he appreciates that insight
as it will solve some problems.
3:38:05 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS referred to HB 407, Sec. 3. [AS
15.13.040(g), page 3, lines 4-23], and noted that currently, any
group, even if they only spend $1, must register with APOC and
go through all of the paperwork. He opined that Sec. 3
establishes a $2,500 floor and any group that spends less than
that amount does not have to go through the whole APOC process.,
similar to a candidate who spends less than $5,000 "does not
have to do that." Given that this came out of the Senate
Finance Subcommittee process, he asked where the $2,500 amount
came from, and whether there is any sort of rhyme or reason for
$2,500 as opposed to $5,000 or $2,000.
MS. HEBDEN opined that the $2,500 was actually derived from the
similar language that applies to a candidate's campaign. A
candidate's campaign is not in a calendar year, it typically
straddles two calendar years given that candidates are able to
file a letter of intent up to 18 months from the election.
Thereby, limiting it for a group is very similar to the
candidate, except it is based on a calendar year so
theoretically, she offered, they could still expend up to $5,000
during one election cycle.
3:39:42 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS surmised that effectively the amount is
being pro-rated down since the group would be a calendar year,
and $5,000 was cut in half which leaves $2,500, and that is the
origin for that number.
MS. HEBDEN answered in the affirmative.
3:40:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX referred to HB 407, Sec. 8. [AS
15.13.374(c), page 5, lines 14-17], which read as follows:
(c) Within 10 business [SEVEN] days after
receiving a request satisfying the requirements of (b)
of this section, the executive director of the
commission shall recommend a draft advisory opinion
for the commission to consider at its next meeting.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether it had been determined that
changing this from seven days to ten business days would make it
almost two weeks before an advisory opinion was issued.
MS. HEBDEN answered that Representative LeDoux was correct, it
would extend it to ten business days rather than seven days.
3:40:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX noted that in the past it read that "the
executive director of the commission shall recommend a draft
advisory opinion." She asked whether the candidate or the
person requesting the advisory opinion would receive a copy of
that draft, and whether the draft advisory opinion is public.
MS. HEBDEN noted that she was unsure she understood the
question.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX offered a scenario wherein Candidate A
requested an advisory opinion about something, and this
legislation read: "the executive director of the commission
shall recommend a draft advisory opinion for the commission at
its next meeting." She asked whether that draft advisory
opinion would be sent to Candidate A.
MS. HEBDEN answered that the draft advisory opinion would be
issued to the person requesting the opinion.
3:42:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX offered concern that if a candidate is in
the midst of a campaign and requests an advisory opinion, it
might take a couple of weekends for the draft advisory opinion
to be issued and that is a long time in a campaign season.
MS. HEBDEN responded that it does extend the timeframe; however,
that does not mean APOC could not issue the draft advisory
opinion earlier. Generally, she said, advisory opinion requests
are not being requested when leading up to election day. The
majority of the time, the requestor of an opinion previously had
some type of interaction with APOC staff and they'll have a
general idea of the staff's interpretation that will be issued,
she explained. This is just the formal process of getting it
before the commission and following after 10 business days gives
staff a little more time to research the issue as well as confer
and have the draft reviewed by the Department of Law (DOL), she
advised.
3:43:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX remarked that she is still uncomfortable
with that explanation because that does not mean that APOC would
issue the draft in ten business days and she is uncomfortable
with that portion of the bill.
3:44:32 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS referred to HB 407, Sec. 7. [AS
15.13.090(g), page 4, lines 27-31 and page 5, lines 1-12], and
asked Ms. Hebden to describe the substance of current law as to
the requirement for "paid for by" identifiers.
MS. HEBDEN responded that under current law, the requirement for
"paid for by" identifiers for written communication is fairly
vague. It provides that the "paid for by" identifier must be
easily discernable, and this leaves it to a broad
interpretation, and it comes up quite frequently. She said that
APOC received recent complaints about board signs on the side of
the road with "paid for by" identifiers that were placed on a
file label. In essence, she explained, a person would have to
stop their car, get out of the car, and actually approach the
sign in order actually read any of the information. The current
language in the bill would simply provide a better standard and
more guidance for filers, she offered.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether APOC has promulgated
regulations or established advisory opinions to provide a more
detailed direction to campaigns as far as how to comply with the
"easily discernable" standard.
MS. HEBDEN answered that there is regulation that applies to the
"paid for by" identifier, although it does not provide much more
specificity. The regulation requires that it be visible,
separate from the text of the communication, and be of
sufficient size to be read by a viewer.
3:46:47 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked that if someone had a big sign by the
side of the road and scribbled on a file label on the bottom
corner the "paid for by" identifier, whether that file label
"paid for by" identifier would be in violation of the standard
that currently exists.
MS. HEBDEN replied that that was a good question.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS offered that if someone filed a complaint
about that sign, whether APOC would find it to be in violation.
MS. HEBDEN responded that if the file label contained all of the
correct language, "it very well could be considered
substantially compliant and APOC would not find a violation.
3:47:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK requested clarification that she was saying
that as a person is driving down the road, a person must be able
to read the "paid for by" identifier, depending on the speed of
the vehicle.
MS. HEBDEN answered that that is just an example and she does
not know that that is necessarily the standard.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK referred to HB 47, Sec. 7, [AS 15.13.090(g),
page 4, lines 28-29], which read as follows:
(g) A "paid for by" identifier for a printed
communication is clearly identified and easily
discernible ...
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked for clarification that that standard
is unknown.
MS. HEBDEN answered that currently, the standard is that it be
"easily discernable." The language before the committee aims to
add more specificity by setting a standard font size based on
the size of the communication, she advised.
3:48:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said that he knows there are Alaska
Department of Transportation (DOT) highway standard signs and
depending upon the speed of the vehicle -- and those signs are
pretty huge, for example, a stop sign, and the sign must be able
to be seen from a certain distance. He asked whether it is
really a concern for drivers to be able to see the "paid for by"
identifier.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said she echoes the same thoughts as
Representative Tuck because if it is important to someone, and
the information is on the sign, the person can get out of their
car to look at the sign. She asked whether the committee has to
micro-manage the font size, and answered, "I don't think so."
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP opined that the signs are not supposed to
be placed within 600 feet of the right-of-way anyway, and he
can't see that far, so he is not sure whether font size is a big
issue. He asked whether that was in statute.
MS. HEBDEN (audio difficulties) regulate the placement of the
sign, only the content of the sign. She reiterated that the
billboard was simply an example of the "paid for by" identifier
questions as one of APOC's number one complaints. It is the
"low-hanging fruit" that the public sees, and this is meant to
benefit the filers, she advised.
3:50:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL said that as Representative Knopp mentioned,
signs are not supposed to be near the road, but everyone knows
that they are. He said, "If this 10 percent rule, that if a
sign is bigger than 2 feet by 3 feet, then the 'paid for by'
can't be any smaller than 10 percent. So, I can see a big 4 by
8 sign that has 3 letters on it, 'JKT' each 3.5 feet, then the
'paid for by' has to be 10 percent of 3.5 feet with each font.
That's pretty big." It is one thing if a person receives
something in the mail but driving down the highway at 55 mph is
another thing, he said.
MS. HEBDEN replied that she understands that 10 percent of the
sign might be big in certain cases. She reiterated that it is
not necessarily the size of it, it is simply setting some sort
of standard beyond "easily discernable."
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL said that he noticed that the bill lists a
font size for the smaller sign and commented that this all
appears overly complicated.
3:52:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to
HB 407, to delete Sec 7 in its entirety [page 4, lines 27-31 and
page 5, lines 1-12].
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected for purposes of discussion.
3:53:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP offered that he was unsure he could support
a complete deletion of Sec. 7, if it removes any requirement for
posting "paid for by" identifiers. Although, he said, he would
support a conceptual amendment that deletes the 10 percent, as
that is the actual issue. He added that he would support an
amendment "if it was nominal, no smaller than two-inch letters"
on the sign, and that deleting Sec. 7 in its entirety would
remove that entire requirement.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX explained that Sec.7 is an entirely new
section in the law and there is another section somewhere in the
statute that requires the "paid for by" identifier. Therefore,
removing this section will not open the door to various types of
campaign literature with "paid for by" identifiers. Conceptual
Amendment 1 removes micromanaging "this thing down to the enth
degree," she explained.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP offered his support if Representative
LeDoux's statement could be verified.
MS. HEBDEN stated that Representative LeDoux is correct, under
current AS 15.13.090 "paid for by" is required, and Sec. 7
simply adds a new subsection clarifying "easily discernable."
3:55:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK commented that he understands why Sec. 7 was
included in HB 407, in that there are probably many complaints
that APOC receives and streamlining it for the agency would
probably assist the agency. Although, he said, he is a bit
leery on some of this language and referred to Sec. 7, AS
15.13.090(g)(1), page 4, lines 30-31, which read as follows:
(1) smaller than 24 inches by 36 inches in
size or that includes a video component, the "paid for
by" identifier is
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK commented that he was unsure how to get to
12 points on a video, and some of this language could be
improved upon, so he supports Conceptual Amendment 1. He asked
Ms. Hebden whether APOC has the authority to create a policy
through regulation.
MS. HEBDEN answered that APOC does have the authority through
regulation.
3:56:51 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS withdrew his objection. There being no
objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 to HB 407 was adopted.
3:57:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2 to
HB 407, and delete Sec. 8, which has the effect of returning to
7 days rather than 10 business days.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected.
3:57:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP offered concern regarding the ten business
days requirement because by including the weekends, it totals
two weeks. Yesterday, Ms. Hebden stated that APOC gives
priority to time-sensitive requests, yet there is an amount of
overtime that could be required when addressing these requests
within seven days, he said. Ms. Hebden also mentioned that
sometimes legal opinions and so forth are quite time-consuming
and it puts her staff in somewhat of a bind, he said.
3:58:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL suggested a compromise of seven business
days as it may allow the agency enough time to respond to
requests.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX related that if she can get the vote,
she'll take seven business days.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS responded that he would be amenable to
seven business days because there is value in this section, and
it gives APOC a bit more flexibility. For cleanliness of
process, he asked whether Representative LeDoux would be
comfortable withdrawing Conceptual Amendment 2 and offering a
new Conceptual Amendment 3.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX withdrew Conceptual Amendment 2.
3:59:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 3 to
HB 407, [AS 15.13.374(c), page 5, line 14], delete "10 business"
and insert "7 business."
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected for purposes of discussion.
3:59:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said that while he realizes this is a policy
call, APOC came to the legislature in good faith with some cost-
saving measures. He reminded the committee that the employees
at APOC work hard, especially during campaign season, and are
swamped with all sorts of inquiries that include:
investigations, reporting, answering to the public, and so
forth. He commented that ten business days is reasonable
because when people run for office, typically they have a
campaign plan and hopefully they will present their questions
"way ahead of time." Although, he said, if it is the will of
the committee to go with seven business days, he said he guesses
that is a good compromise.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS noted that seven business days may be the
sweet spot for the committee.
4:01:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked Ms. Hebden to offer her comments and
pointed out that APOC's staff has been cut.
MS. HEBDEN responded that she would be happy with seven business
days because she appreciates this legislation moving forward.
Those extra few days would help to provide more time to perform
a little more research as far as performing a thorough analysis
of any issues and possibly help the Department of Law (DOL) as
well, she said.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK suggested that if Conceptual Amendment 3 is
adopted and the legislation moves to the next committee, that
Ms. Hebden calculate the average amount of employee hours spent
per inquiry in order to offer the House Finance Committee more
workload information when determining whether seven business
days would actually help APOC as much as it would prefer.
4:02:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL noted that the committee had gone back and
forth on the number of days and related that seven business days
could be nine days total with the weekend, or it could be simply
ten calendar days.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP related that he would not support
Representative Wool in that request because somewhere along the
line the interpretation will get back to ten business days and
APOC will be back at 14 days. There will be no grey areas if
the committee is specific with seven business days going
forward.
4:03:51 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS withdrew his objection. There being no
objection to changing 10 business days to seven business day,
Conceptual Amendment 3 to HB 407 was adopted.
4:04:16 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
4:04:41 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced he had an amendment which would
be distributed to committee members and explained that HB 158 is
sponsored by Representative Eastman, which this committee heard
last year. Basically, he explained, it deletes statutes that
APOC is not currently following, and he recently realized that
the committee had heard this APOC cleanup bill, and that this
bill is "sitting in Finance."
4:05:38 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS moved to adopt Amendment 4, labeled 30-
LS1525\D.1, Bullard, 4/4/18, which read as follows:
Page 1, line 1, following "An Act":
Insert "relating to the location of offices for
the Alaska Public Offices Commission and the locations
at which certain statements and reports filed with the
commission are made available;"
Page 1, following line 8:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Section 1. AS 15.13.020(j) is amended to read:
(j) The commission shall establish a central
[AN] office [, WHICH MAY BE CALLED A REGIONAL OFFICE,
IN EACH SENATE DISTRICT IN THE STATE] to keep on file
for public inspection copies of all reports filed with
the commission [BY CANDIDATES FOR STATEWIDE OFFICE AND
BY CANDIDATES FOR LEGISLATIVE OFFICE IN THAT DISTRICT;
HOWEVER, WHERE ONE MUNICIPALITY CONTAINS MORE THAN ONE
HOUSE DISTRICT, ONLY ONE COMMISSION OFFICE SHALL BE
ESTABLISHED IN THAT MUNICIPALITY. THE REGIONAL OFFICE
SHALL MAKE ALL FORMS AND PERTINENT MATERIAL AVAILABLE
TO CANDIDATES. ALL REPORTS SHALL BE FILED BY
CANDIDATES, GROUPS, AND INDIVIDUALS DIRECTLY WITH THE
COMMISSION'S CENTRAL DISTRICT OFFICE. THE COMMISSION
SHALL ENSURE THAT COPIES OF ALL REPORTS BY STATEWIDE
AND LEGISLATIVE CANDIDATES IN EACH SENATE DISTRICT ARE
FORWARDED PROMPTLY TO THAT DISTRICT OR REGIONAL
OFFICE]."
Page 1, line 9:
Delete "Section 1"
Insert "Sec. 2"
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 5, following line 17:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 10. AS 24.45.091 is amended to read:
Sec. 24.45.091. Publication of reports. Copies of
the statements and reports filed under this chapter
shall be made available to the public at the
commission's central office and on the commission's
Internet website [, THE OFFICE OF THE LIEUTENANT
GOVERNOR, THE LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE LIBRARY OF THE
LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AGENCY, AND AT THE COMMISSION'S
DISTRICT OFFICES PRESCRIBED IN AS 15.13.020(j)] as
soon as practicable after each reporting period.
* Sec. 11. AS 24.45.111(b) is amended to read:
(b) The commission shall preserve the statements
and reports required to be filed under this chapter
for a period of six years from the date of filing.
Copies [IF THE COMMISSION'S CENTRAL OFFICE IS NOT IN
THE STATE CAPITAL, COPIES] of all statements and
reports filed under this chapter shall be maintained
in the commission's central [AN] office and be made
available on the commission's Internet website
[ESTABLISHED BY THE COMMISSION IN THE STATE CAPITAL OR
IN THE OFFICE OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR]. "
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK objected.
4:05:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK remarked that Amendment 4 to HB 407 is
actually HB 158, and he was unsure there was ever an amendment
deadline on this bill. He requested an explanation of Amendment
4, [HB 158].
4:06:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID EASTMAN, Alaska State Legislature,
explained that contained within the statutes are certain
statutory requirements for APOC to accomplish, except the
legislature never provided the funding. Therefore, he pointed
out, it is not within APOC's means to accomplish those
requirements and short of a significant increase in funding from
this legislature, APOC will continue to not accomplish those
requirements. Amendment 4 removes the requirement that APOC
maintain an office in each of the Senate districts, and the
amendment does not result in the closure of any offices because
APOC has not followed that particular statute. It is not a
physical change; it is a change to the statute. There is no
reference to using the internet currently in statute and
Amendment 4 adds a reference that the legislature does want APOC
to have a website, he said.
4:07:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP surmised that Representative Eastman's
intent is, "the commission shall establish a central office" but
the language is not specific as to where that office will be
located. He asked whether it will be one APOC office or
multiple offices somewhere. He further asked whether APOC
currently maintains a central office in Juneau or Anchorage
where most of this retention is done that is mentioned in the
amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN answered that the Amendment 4 reads that
APOC should at least have one office, and it currently maintains
an Anchorage office which would satisfy that requirement. There
is not a statutory requirement as to where that APOC office
should be located, and if APOC decided to move to Fairbanks at
some point, it could. He added that the amendment does not add
any new requirements; it simply removes the requirement that
APOC maintain more than one office.
4:09:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP surmised that the amendment removes the
requirement that APOC have an office in every Senate district.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN answered that Representative Knopp was
correct.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked that if APOC currently maintained a
Juneau and a Fairbanks office, whether it would require the
closure of those offices so APOC would have only a central
office.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN answered that this amendment simply
requires that APOC maintain at least one office, if it wanted
more offices and the legislature appropriated the funds, it
could open more offices.
4:09:45 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked Ms. Hebden to comment on HB 158 and
Amendment 4, and whether APOC would characterize this as basic
statute cleanup by bringing those statutes into alignment with
APOC's practices.
MS. HEBDEN described HB 158 as a statutory cleanup that would
codify APOC's current agency practices. It is not interpreted
as requiring a closure of an office, but rather to simply not
have an office in each Senate district, which it does not at
this point, she said.
4:10:57 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS deferred to the will of the committee on
this as it was a "late breaking idea" on his part to have some
statutory cleanup performed while a vehicle was available.
4:11:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL commented that Amendment 4 will "take APOC
off the state's most wanted list of breaking the rules" because
APOC does not currently maintain an office in every Senate
district. This amendment "would sort of cleanup their act a
little bit," he said.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked that at the time APOC was created
whether it ever had an office in every Senate district.
MS. HEBDEN opined that in the early years it contracted with
local municipal clerk's offices to provide APOC forms and that
type of assistance to filers. Given the rise in technology,
most of the APOC filings take place online and it is not
necessary to have forms on hand for filers, she explained.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP advised that he will support Amendment 4.
4:12:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK removed his objection on Amendment. There
being no objection, Amendment 4 was adopted.
4:12:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK noted that he may offer an amendment on the
floor of the House of Representatives or in the House Finance
Committee, regarding a provision where when "you get down to the
24-hour reporting," if there are any contributions over $250, a
candidate must report that amount. He opined that there is an
anomaly there, whereas if someone is doing an "in-kind
contribution" to their own campaign ... he opined that the
reason for that $250 report is to see any undue influence taking
place at the very end of the campaign. Except, he pointed out,
campaign limitations are not placed on the candidates
themselves, they can donate any amount to their campaign, so how
does a person unduly influence themselves. He said the
potential amendment would be with regard to when a candidate has
an in-kind contribution or even a donation to a candidate's own
campaign, that as to the 24-hour reporting period, it is not
necessary to report that donation.
4:14:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether a candidate could make a
donation to their own campaign within a certain period of time.
MS. HEBDEN answered that during the 33 days prior to the
election, the candidate is limited to contributing no more than
$5,000 to their own campaign.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX surmised that a candidate can donate to
their own campaign up until the very end, the $5,000.
MS. HEBDEN answered that Representative Ledoux is correct.
4:15:38 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS opened public testimony on HB 407. After
ascertaining no one wished to testify, he closed public
testimony on HB 407.
4:15:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL moved to report HB 407, labeled 30-LS1525\D,
as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, HB
407(STA) was moved from committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB407 Sponsor Statement 4.2.18.pdf |
HSTA 4/3/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/5/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 407 |
| HB 407 Sectional Analysis 4.2.18.pdf |
HSTA 4/3/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/5/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 407 |
| HB407 ver D 4.2.18.pdf |
HSTA 4/3/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/5/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 407 |
| HB407 Fiscal Note 4.2.18.pdf |
HSTA 4/3/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/5/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 407 |
| SCR 17 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HSTA 3/22/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/3/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/5/2018 3:15:00 PM |
SCR 17 |
| SCR017A.PDF |
HSTA 3/22/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/3/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/5/2018 3:15:00 PM |
SCR 17 |
| SCR 17 Fiscal Note.pdf |
HSTA 3/22/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/3/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/5/2018 3:15:00 PM |
SCR 17 |
| SCR 17 Support CDVSA 2015 Victimization Survey.pdf |
HSTA 3/22/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/3/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/5/2018 3:15:00 PM |
SCR 17 |
| SCR 17 Support Ltr Women.pdf |
HSTA 3/22/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/3/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/5/2018 3:15:00 PM |
SCR 17 |
| SCR 17 Support Materials 2018 Theme.pdf |
HSTA 3/22/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/3/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/5/2018 3:15:00 PM |
SCR 17 |
| SCR 17 Support Materials CDC National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey.pdf |
HSTA 3/22/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/3/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/5/2018 3:15:00 PM |
SCR 17 |
| SCR 17 Support Materials News Article 11.20.2016.pdf |
HSTA 3/22/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/3/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/5/2018 3:15:00 PM |
SCR 17 |
| SB163 Sponsor Statement 3.28.18.pdf |
HSTA 4/3/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/5/2018 3:15:00 PM |
SB 163 |
| SB163 ver D 3.28.18.pdf |
HSTA 4/3/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/5/2018 3:15:00 PM |
SB 163 |
| SB163 Fiscal Note DOT-MSCVE 3.28.18.pdf |
HSTA 4/3/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/5/2018 3:15:00 PM |
SB 163 |
| SB163 Supporting Document - DOT information 4.4.18.pdf |
HSTA 4/5/2018 3:15:00 PM |
SB 163 |
| Work Draft 30-LS1526 ver D Sectional Analysis 4.2.18.pdf |
HSTA 4/5/2018 3:15:00 PM |
|
| Work Draft 30-LS1526 ver D 4.2.18.pdf |
HSTA 4/5/2018 3:15:00 PM |
|
| HB083 Sponsor Statement 2.28.17.pdf |
HSTA 3/20/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/22/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/3/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/5/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 83 |
| HB083 Sectional Analysis 2.28.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/20/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/22/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/3/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/5/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 83 |
| HB 83 ver T 4.2.18.pdf |
HSTA 4/3/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/5/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 83 |
| HB83 Explanation of changes from ver N to ver T 4.3.18.pdf |
HSTA 4/5/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 83 |
| HB083 Fiscal Note DOA-COM 2.9.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/20/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/22/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/3/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/5/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 83 |
| HB083 Fiscal Note DOA-DRB 2.9.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/20/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/22/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/3/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/5/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 83 |
| HB083 Supporting Document - 401k retirement readiness 4.18.17.pdf |
HSTA 3/20/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/22/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/3/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/5/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 83 |
| HB083 Supporting Document - Alaska Comparable Plans 4.18.17.pdf |
HSTA 3/20/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/22/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/3/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/5/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 83 |
| HB083 Supporting Document - Compare DB to DC access 4.18.17.pdf |
HSTA 3/20/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/22/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/3/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/5/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 83 |
| HB083 Oakley Presentation.pdf |
HSTA 3/20/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/22/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/3/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/5/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 83 |
| HB083 Letters of Support 2.28.18.pdf |
HSTA 3/20/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 3/22/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/3/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/5/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 83 |
| HB83 Legal Memorandum on ver T 4.2.18.pdf |
HSTA 4/3/2018 3:15:00 PM HSTA 4/5/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 83 |