Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/26/2004 08:17 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 351-APOC REPORTS: FORMS & ELECTRONIC FILING Number 2216 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the next order of business was CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 351(FIN), "An Act requiring the Alaska Public Offices Commission to accept documents by nonelectronic means, and specifying the manner of preparing the forms that are provided by the commission." Number 2229 KIMBERLY CARNOT, Staff to Senator Lyda Green, Alaska State Legislature, presented SB 351 on behalf of Senator Green, sponsor. She stated that [SB 351] would expand the Alaska Public Offices Commission's (APOC) authority to continue to accept filing that is not electronic, including standard paper filing. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if [SB 351] is a "fix-it" bill from what the legislature passed the previous year. MS. CARNOT answered yes. She said the bill is, essentially, limited to filings that a candidate for an election or incumbent would file and would not deal with lobbyist reports, for example. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH recalled that Representative Lynn had testified at length regarding part of the related legislation heard last year. Number 2261 REPRESENTATIVE LYNN clarified that the discussion had been in regard to publishing any donations made to a candidate on the Internet, thus providing instantaneous disclosure of how much has been contributed to a candidate and by whom. It would eliminate the number of reports that have to be made by candidates, as well as the possibility of being late on reports. Number 2325 BROOKE MILES, Executive Director, Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC), Department of Administration, stated that APOC does not support SB 351 and does not view it as cleanup legislation from last year. Conversely, she stated, APOC views [SB 351] as reversing one of the primary components that passed last year: mandatory electronic filing. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH noted that on page 1, [line 9], the bill requires that black ink be used. He asked about blue ink. TAPE 04-69, SIDE B Number 2359 MS. MILES responded that the commission did not suggest this language and accepts any color ink; it does not accept pencil. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH expressed concern that "some clerk at a counter" would reject information submitted in a color of ink that was not black. He asked if specifying dark ink would be a good idea. MS. MILES agreed that "dark ink" would be better, or even just "ink". Number 2305 MS. CARNOT explained the reason for using "legible black typeface or hand-printed in black ink" was because of concerns raised by APOC that many of the forms submitted are illegible. She said [the sponsor] would not object to APOC's suggestion that a form could be submitted in any color ink. Number 2275 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG related personal experience with having used the wrong color ink on a form. He suggested that eliminating [the specification of] the color of ink may keep somebody on the ballot. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH mirrored Representative Gruenberg's story with one of his own. MS. CARNOT noted that APOC forms can be sent by facsimile and some colors of ink do not show up well when sent in that manner. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said he thinks requiring "dark" [ink would suffice]. MS. CARNOT responded, "My suggestion would be that it's not really necessary, but I understand what you're trying to address, so I'm not going to fight it any more than that." Number 2210 TAMMY KEMPTON, Regulation of Lobbying, Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC), Department of Administration, suggested that the bigger problem is illegibility. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH noted that "legible" appears in the bill. Number 2195 REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated that one of the points that is made for [SB 351] is that communities don't have access to Internet service. He stated his understanding that all the village schools have Internet services that's available for people in the area to use if they don't have commercial Internet service available. He said he's trying to figure out if the basis for this is a reality in the villages, or a "convenience to candidates." MS. CARNOT replied that [the sponsor] was trying not to discourage people from running for office, simply because they are not comfortable on a computer or don't have full access to one. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH noted that all his forms are handwritten. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON indicated his concern is in regard to the availability of the information to the public. He compared the speed of the Internet with sending a form by mail from a village. He asked if there would be any restriction on a candidate running for office using the Internet provided through the school system to file the required reports. He added, "If that Internet access, which is the only Internet access in the village, would be, for some reason, restricted because it's state subsidized, ... then I see a need for the bill. Number 2054 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection to changing "black" to "dark". He explained that it appears in "four or five places." REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he thinks that in the phrase "legible black typeface" [on page 1, line 9], the word "black" should remain. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH, in response to Representative Gruenberg, confirmed that his intent was to change "black ink" to "dark ink", [by means of Conceptual Amendment 1 on page 1, line 9, and page 2, lines 7 and 22]. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that no objection was stated; therefore, [Conceptual Amendment 1] was adopted. Number 2003 REPRESENTATIVE LYNN observed that one candidate who files electronically gives his/her information instantly, while another who files by mail does not; therefore, some candidates may have an advantage of seeing that information sooner than others. He opined that everyone should either send his/her forms in electronically or by mail, in order to level the playing field. He said he believes there are some candidates who would play games and would deliberately submit handwritten forms to defeat timely disclosure. Number 1965 MS. CARNOT offered her belief that only six states require electronic filing. MS. MILES clarified that 22 states currently have mandatory electronic filing. MS. CARNOT noted that the online application for the Alaska permanent fund dividend (PFD) is a three-page form, which people had trouble filing out. The APOC reports, which are difficult, are lengthy reports. She pointed out that a difficult situation would be if a person were to experience a transmission problem in the process of filing. In reference to Representative Lynn's previously voiced concerns, she noted that currently it is possible to get photocopies or facsimiles of filings. She admitted that it's a difficult task for APOC to take the information off of paper form and enter it into a computer, which is why attempts are being made to clean up the forms and make them as user-friendly as possible. She said she understands the concern about a candidate potentially writing in an illegible manner to shield contribution for whatever reason, but she asked the committee to remember that APOC has a dual role of being user-friendly to the people filing, as well as being able to get the information out to the public. She stated, "I don't think one role should trump the other, as the current statute would have it." Number 1887 REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said he thinks the integrity of the electoral process is more important than convenience to the candidates. He asked what the statistics have been regarding how many have filed electronically and those who have filed nonelectronically during the House and Senate races. Number 1872 MS. MILES noted that in 1998, 7 percent of filers voluntarily filed electronically; in 2000, 12 percent; and in 2002, 15 percent. The rest of the forms filed must be entered manually. She continued as follows: This is complicated ...,.because when you passed this legislation last year, it was anticipated that when electronic filing came online - which is a three-year project - ... our agency could realize some efficiencies. However, the legislature didn't wait for that, but cut our budget by $100,000, which - because our budget is small and all of our money is in personal services - resulted in a 20-percent loss of staff. Instead of ten, we're now eight. So, there are fewer people to conduct the data entry and, in addition to that, we prioritize - as we primarily spoke to - the public service. So, we always prioritize the assisting of filers before conducting data entry. Looking at this scenario, we're fairly certain that we will not be able to have information published for all candidates before election day in 2004, and, if this legislation passes, then that goal is probably lost until such time as we get a much higher degree of voluntary filing electronically. Number 1805 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that a person who is computer illiterate who runs for office may have to hire someone [to fill out electronic forms]. He said he thinks poor people should be able to run for office, and he said he thinks that may prevent them from being able to run for office. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested a win-win situation. He said if the language is kept basically as it is [in SB 351], but add a provision that says if someone submits an illegible form, APOC may require that person to submit a legible copy and may impose a civil penalty for repeated offenses, or take any other disciplinary action necessary. He offered to help draft language [for an amendment]. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH responded, "Well, not on this bill." Number 1725 MS. MILES responded that that wouldn't have anything to do with solving the data entry problem. She said the primary concern is not that people don't want to file electronically, but it is that the agency is not funded to lead its mission without electronic filing. Number 1697 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved [to report CSSB 351(FIN), as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note]. There being no objection, HCS CSSB 351(STA) was reported out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH noted for the record that Senator Green had just arrived, and he recapped the amendment that had been adopted to SB 351. Number 1660 SENATOR LYDA GREEN, as sponsor of SB 351, offered her understanding that some shades of blue ink don't copy well. She said she didn't think an APOC clerk would turn away an application based on the color of ink. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH emphasized that the intent was to have APOC accept applications.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|