Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120

04/05/2018 03:15 PM 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.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as
Download Video part 1. <- Right click and save file as

Audio Topic
03:21:31 PM Start
03:22:24 PM Approval of Introduction of Potential Committee Legislation
03:25:06 PM HB83
03:34:54 PM SCR17
03:35:57 PM HB407
04:16:19 PM SB163
04:26:37 PM Adjourn
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+= HB 407 APOC; CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS/REPORTING TELECONFERENCED
Moved CSHB 407(STA) Out of Committee
-- Public Testimony --
+= SCR 17 APRIL 2018:SEXUAL ASSAULT AWARENESS MONTH TELECONFERENCED
Moved SCR 17 Out of Committee
-- Public Testimony --
+= SB 163 DEFINITION OF COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES TELECONFERENCED
Moved CSSB 163(STA) Out of Committee
-- Public Testimony --
*+ "An Act relating to possession of marijuana; and TELECONFERENCED
relating to misconduct involving controlled
substances."
<Bill Hearing Canceled>
<Pending Introduction & Referral>
+ Approval of introduction of potential committee TELECONFERENCED
legislation
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
+= HB 83 TEACHERS & PUB EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT PLANS TELECONFERENCED
Moved CSHB 83(STA) Out of Committee
         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